Microsoft's $358 million damage award overturned, Alcatel-Lucent likely perturbed
By Darren Murph 
posted Sep 14th 2009 9:58AM
posted Sep 14th 2009 9:58AM
We won't go so far as to compare this to the epic multi-year Broadcom vs. Qualcomm saga, but this is certainly shaping up to be the case that never ends, part II. Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent have been at each other's throats over various things since August of 2007, and while we've seen damages awarded and overturned a few times since, the latest ruling to be handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has A-L waiting a wee bit longer to get its (maybe) due. This past Friday, the court decided that while a $358 million damages award against Microsoft for "violating patents relating to technology that allows users to enter dates into calendars in its Outlook e-mail program" was somewhat legitimate, the damages were "unjustified." The result? The whole thing has to be retried, giving the contracted law firms for both companies immense joy.
Quote
"violating patents relating to technology that allows users to enter dates into calendars in its Outlook e-mail program"
Yet another sterling example of why software patents need to be outlawed.
hmmm outlawed is a bit overkill. Definitely toned down a bit. Different ways to attach a steering wheel to a car shouldn't be patentable, IMHO If two companies connect the bolt with a wingnut vs a hex nut you shouldn't be able to sue.
IMHO this case and the XML case fall into the same ludicrous concept.
But outlaw....no. If someone has a new algorithm that increases search speed and accuracy 100% they should have rights to that...for a certain amount of time.
I agree with John Doe... outlawing software patents seems a bit extreme. But, my guess is you are just a patent hater, and it wouldn't matter what changes are made to the current patent system.
I think this case shows exactly how software patents should be treated. If Alcatel truly invented something new and non-obvious (the required standards for patentability), they are entitled to a patent. BUT, if that novel and non-obvious improvement is relatively minor, and doesn't offer much of a monetary benefit, they shouldn't be entitled to an injunction or much in damages. I think the injunctions granted for non-practicing patentees and exorbitant damage awards for incremental improvements are what really piss people off about the patent system... not that fact that the patents were granted (if they deserved to be).
At first I thought "what kind of moronic company patents typing a date in?" - but then I remembered in Outlook, you can type things like "next Tuesday" or "a week tomorrow" and it automatically sorts the right date out for you... so it's probably that.
IMHO, software should be copyrightable, but not patentable. If someone decided to create a clone of your program without using any of your code, it should be perfectly legal.
If it's an area where people can genuinely innovate, it deserves to have patent protection.
You're confusing concept with implementation. The concept of extending patent protection to software inventions is fine, but the implementation typically leads to ridiculous patents. This may be because the patent office clerk was not as computer literate as would be required to fully understand the proposal. The good thing is that these patents are typically unenforceable, as defending companies can make solid cases that show these patents as invalid.
Unfortunately, computer science is a very complex topic, and a certain amount of patience is required towards both the patent office and the judiciary. That doesn't mean that patent protection for software should be scrapped.
@ mikey
I dislike software patents because they allow people to patent concepts,not just specific code implementations.
It is very fucked up that our legal system allows people to patent a form of data entry and makes it a crime for someone
else to write a different code sequence that does the same thing.
"You're confusing concept with implementation."
Explain to me a concept that patentable then... I'd genuinely like to hear you make it not sound obvious, previously used, and unique.
What you are talking about it akin to allowing Walt Disney to patent the idea of drawing animated figures on blank media or Tolkien the ability to patent the idea of wizards and magic.
John Doe: while I agree that in theory there are sw patents worth granting, the question is - can we realistically expect the patent office to filter out all the bad ones? Is it even doable, without hiring 1M of programmers? Because if not, it might do less damange to abolish sw patents. Not every idea, which is theoretically good, works in practice..
@business.
If you have code that says
crazy example: you make 2 knifes, they both cut, but they are made differently, no patient issue here.
but if you have a code
10 print "hello world"
20 goto 10
and some other guy does
10 print "hello world"
20 goto 30
30 goto 10
thats a different program, but does it really do anything differently? There are some blatantly bogus software lawsuits that take place, don't get me wrong, but to say do away with it, is over doing it. And while there are places were it gets done to much, there are other areas where it gets done to little (gameloft for example, and how they steal pretty much every game concept they do).
I think the real way to solve this problem is to have more computer competent judges and patent officers.
@ business: Grammar hit the nail right on the head, if you only have copyright protection for software, it is no real protection at all. If a particular program is truly groundbreaking and has a completely new concept, if a competitor writes a competing code from scratch that has the exact same functionality, there can be no copyright infringement. You can't actually copyright underlying ideas, just how those ideas are implemented in a particular media.
You complain that patents cover concepts... but that is the whole point of patents. This is why I suspect you are one of the many who are "anti-patent." I believe this is more because people do not understand how the patent system is supposed to work, and have a knee-jerk reaction when they see what gets patented. But, just because a company got a patent does not mean that patent is wroth anything and can actually prevent others from practicing. Most patents can only be used to generate a small revenue stream for the patentee. It is cases like this one and the Blackberry case from a few years ago that give people a very distorted view of how it really works.
@Adir3.0
I don't think you really understand what I meant. I meant that the idea of patenting software is by no means flawed, it's the implementation that's flawed. That is, if you come up with an original technique, you should be able to protect it. However, due to computer science being a relatively complicated subject, it's easy for people at the patent office to award patents for things they don't entirely understand.
And I don't think you really understand patents. You can't patent general ideas, but you can patent specific techniques. For example, Google's PageRank technology uses the number of times a site is linked to to determine search results. That's not at all obvious. Google can patent that technology. That doesn't mean they've patented searching, just their particular implementation of it.
If Mr. Disney invented a new way of drawing cartoons, or if nobody before had had the idea of showing lots of images in rapid succession to create motion, he could certainly patent that. Patent applications have to go in to immense detail for these techniques.
"but if you have a code
10 print "hello world"
20 goto 10
and some other guy does
10 print "hello world"
20 goto 30
30 goto 10
thats a different program, but does it really do anything differently?"
Yes... it does a lot of things differently. For one, the original code is faster and more efficient. I still have yet to see a valid response to my original question. Name me a concept in software development that is patentable.
As far as Page Rank, if I designed a marble sorter, can I patent the method of sorting marbles? No, I have to patent the rig that I concocted to sort them. If someone else decided they can make a more efficient sorter that gives you the same results using a different contraption, it's perfectly legal.
"That's not at all obvious." To who? If I invented a machine that used cameras to count how many times a blue car passed by my house and determined the relevance of the color blue to my neighborhood and my neighbor used a video feed, he's doing the same thing as I am. Should I be able to get a patent on counting cars to determine the favoritism of blue, then be able to sue him because he counts blue cars too?
And to counter your argument about Disney. Yes, they have to go into detail on exactly how they did it. In the software industry, this is called source code and is copyrighted.
This seems to happen a lot. They make up some ridiculously large number. Win the case, but it gets overturned and the number gets written to a much smaller amount.
Lawyers just wanting their minute in fame.
I'm actually happy for Microsoft...
It was seriously getting to the point where any guy would be able to sue the company for bundling notepad or some other basic feature.
I prefer notepad++...
@sitruc - yeh Notepad++ is pretty useful, even if it does defeat the whole point of Notepad...
Lawyers are the only people winning in these cases.
next thing will be a "" will be a patent dispute and will have to pay dearly.
That 358 million is the amount paid to the law firms thus far...... Both companies are just trying to recoup the expenses.....
off topic: Anyone know if intel has officially released chipset drivers for the win 7 x64?
Depends. Many of the chipset drivers are included in the base install of Win7. The do have newer drivers out there though http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?&DwnldID=10884
Note that, that link is for desktops.
So, you have access to this site and are able to post to it, but you are not able to look up your own answer? Hmmm... How does that motivate others to answer you with the data you are requesting?
Thanks john. I've looked at the intel site many times since beta, but couldn't find ones listing x58 mobo as supported. I just found a newer version 9.1.1.1019:
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=Y&DwnldID=18053&ProdId=816&lang=eng
@Saltboy: I obviously wasn't asking you. Ass.
hahahaha i love the last part "giving the contracted law firms for both companies immense joy." rofl
Crappola
boo
wow, big judgement
> I agree with John Doe... outlawing software patents seems a bit extreme.
> But, my guess is you are just a patent hater, and it wouldn't matter what
> changes are made to the current patent system.
Outlawing software is by no means extreme. It's only a mildly reactionary viewpoint.
If the man is a "patent hater" then the treatment of software as patents likely made him that way.
You make him out to be irrational when the truth is quite the opposite. Patents are meant to serve a purpose and that purpose is not being served by the current software patent copyright regime. Quite the opposite. The intended goal of patents is being sabotaged with respect to software.
It is infact the notion of a software patent that is "new and radical and extreme". Bad rhetoric tends to obscure that fact.
MS should sue the patent office for issuing ridiculous patents.
Seriously though, I think software-based patent cases should be dismissed immediately if that technology is also used in some lesser-used software and the company that developed it is not being sued, because than the point of the case is not to protect the patent, but to get a ton of money.