Posted on 07/24/2003 3:01:32 PM PDT by glorgau
Last month, when Microsoft announced its bellwether decision to award employees restricted stock instead of options, it also made news in a federal courtroom—the kind of news you keep quiet about.
Microsoft suffered utter defeat at a crucial pretrial hearing in what appears to be the highest-stakes patent litigation ever—one in which a tiny company called InterTrust Technologies claims that 85% of Microsoft's entire product line infringes its digital security patents. (See Can This Man Bring Down Microsoft?)
InterTrust's engineers developed and patented what they say are key inventions in two areas: so-called digital-rights management and trusted systems. The technologies are essential to the digital distribution of copyrighted music and movies, and to maintaining the security of e-commerce in general. At its prebubble height, InterTrust (founded in 1990) employed 376 people and marketed its own software and hardware products; today it consists mainly of a patent portfolio, 30 employees, and this lawsuit. An investor group led by Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics bought the company in January for $453 million, hoping to convince consumer electronics and tech companies—beginning with Microsoft—of the need to license its patents.
Microsoft argued in court that crucial phrases in InterTrust's patents were too vague to be enforceable, and that others required such narrow interpretation that they would have been hard for Microsoft to infringe. But in her July 3 ruling, an Oakland judge resolved 33 of 33 disputed issues against Microsoft and rebuked the company's lawyers for wasting her time by promising proof that never materialized—legal vaporware, in essence.
"This is simply another step in a long legal process," says a Microsoft spokesman, putting the best face on it. "Microsoft will continue to defend itself against what we believe are groundless and overbroad claims."
As agreed before the hearing, the parties now enter a round of settlement talks. Though InterTrust declines to place a pricetag on the suit, it's hard to imagine the company settling now for any sum that does not have a "B" in it. InterTrust claims that its inventions cover technologies that Microsoft has been weaving into its Windows XP operating system, Office XP Suite, Windows Media Player, Xbox videogame console, and .NET networked computing platform, to name just a few. If settlement talks fail and InterTrust prevails in court, it would be entitled to a court order halting sales of all those products. InterTrust CEO Talal Shamoon asks rhetorically, "How much would that be worth to Microsoft?"
In fact I use ZERO of this stuff, I dumped MS and have no intention of going back.
Technically speaking "one skilled in the ART."
Yep sure do, it is nice being MS free, now where did I my SCO license.....
Yep sure do, it is nice being MS free, now where did I leave my SCO license.....
It is getting late...
Your second point is this: The patent has to be written such that **anyone** skilled in the industry can understand and duplicate the patented process. If the patent can't be understood by those skilled in the industry (in this case, us techies), then it will be invalidated by the courts, per patent law may be true. But you can follow the link and read the patents. I read some of them. They are not hard to understand. So I don't think that point applies. Because I can understand them -- the ones I read are pretty readable, and I understand them.
A thing to think about. Sony and Philips dropped about 1/2 of a BILLION dollars to buy a little company that pretty much only had those patents as assets. They didn't drop that much cash without doing the due diligence.
Are you familiar with "The Doctrine of Equivalence"? Are you a patent attorney? Do you have any U.S. Patents?
I am expecting to receive my first patent approval later this year. That's the only reason that I know anything about this subject, as I've had a crash course on what I can, should, and shouldn't say in my patent and supporting documentation (like brochures, which I can't even have printed until final approval on my patent comes back).
I know nothing about computers or this suit, but that won't keep me from throwing my 2 cents in. :o)
Time and time again, I watched Gemstar win patent fights over the Electronic Program Guide (EPG) that they purchase from StarSight.
This is nothing more than the grid you see when you pull up the program guide on your digital cable or satellite system. Basically, a grid going out 3 hours and down 6 or so channels.
I'm thinking, "How can anyone patent THAT!?"
Sony and RCA put up no fight and licensed the Gemstar/StarSight notion....
And Gemstar/StarSight keeping winning in the courts....
UNTIL...Charlie Ergen of Dish/Echostar (a renowned tightwad) and Scientific Atlanta said...."See you in court" and wouldn't let go.
As the case moved up to smarter judges, Gemstar/StarSight lost every case and their portfolio is now worthless and News Corp. (who had bought the company) took a bath.
I suggest we look at this judge in Oakland before we start making any side bets.
You should learn more about patent law prior to posting statements that indicate your lack of knowledge.
In programming terms:
If I don't understand
Then I shouldn't comment
Else people may not respect my opinion.
Maybe it's because, as you pointed out...
Their CEO has not been in the news, threatening Oceans of Blood and Seas of Fire. They haven't threatened Windows users with having to buy licenses from them.
Your credibility is suspect. I don't think you have any idea of what is involved in the process to have a patent allowed.
You are mistaken. Publishing something more than one year before your patent is filed is grounds for having it invalidated by the courts.And since you don't know if you will have to re-file your patent based upon the USPTO's concept of "Errors", you could find yourself in a world of hurt if you publish at anytime before your patent is officially granted. There simply isn't reason-enough to take the chance that your application will be rejected.
This happened to 3M. Their patent for laser-perforated sheets was invalidated because they published their idea more than a year before they filed their patent application.
Of course. Tough luck if you publish and then see your patent denied.
The really notable absence is Dominic Harr - he lives for this sort of thing.
Did somebody give the Munchkins the night off? They seem to stay away together; I wonder if they'll arrive together.
I think you are right, unless maybe he got hacked, with all the recent flaws in windows. Even MS was hit with Slapper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.