Ric Richardson Loses Microsoft Patent Claim | Uniloc | Australian Inventor — I’d like to see the transcripts of this one.
An Australian inventor, who was set to reap the lion’s share of a mammoth $US388 million $445 million damages award from Microsoft, is now set to get nothing after the US judge hearing the case decided to ignore the jury’s decision and hand victory to Microsoft.
Found by Mark.
Read the link but not the further linked Judge’s ruling. The “idea” of trial periods and unlocking a program strikes me as obvious and not subject to patent claims. I guess the actual program to do it is subject to copyright but that also would be pretty obvious.
Unusual history though of the judge being reversed. I wonder why a new judge wasn’t requested/granted?
Well, I’m against most of patent law, but also against Microsoft’s Unfair Competitions==so this case falls on the line absent reading the case.
It’s easier to pay a judge $44.5 Million under the table than pay the settlement.
But, this is an example of why idot jurists should not be deciding the monetary value of judgements. I mean, if this guy made anti-piracy software that Microsoft stole and used, the software was crap, given the current state of pirated software in Europe and Asia.
Bobbo got it right. Software activation is nothing new.
Also, after having looked at the judge’s decision, it’s obvious that Microsoft’s activation doesn’t infringe on Richardson’s patent.
In a nutshell:
Richardson’s patent is for a software validation system where the user enters a key into their computer, which then sends this key to a remote computer for validation. If validated, the remote computer sends an “ok” to the user’s computer unlocking the software.
In Microsoft’s version, the user enters a key into their computer, which then sends this key to a remote computer for validation.
Then the remote computer sends and “ok” to the user’s computer.
So far the same, except:
Then the user’s computer generates a unique ID which is then sent to the remote computer, which then sends a final “ok” along with what services the user’s computer can run back to the user’s computer.
The difference is in this second set of transmissions keeping track of the number of computers using that key and what services those computers can run.
Obviously an improvement over Richardson’s patent, and therefore not an infringement.
I must have way too much time on my hands.
#2 and microsoft got what they paid for?
or something like that..
Ah Yea–thanks for reading the case for us. Excellent summary on the tech, but you got the law wrong.
Seems to me the violated patent was the Software Activation Patent. M$ stole that and then added to it some tracking/inventory software they probably stole from some third party.
You know VERY well that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Ah Yea, know your patent law! If a use incorporates a patented method/apparatus, then you are infringing, ie., if I patent a car and you make the same car but add air conditioning to it, you are infringing my car patent and must pay damages, got it?
There’s also a vast amount of prior art. All sorts of shareware in the 80’s was setup like this.
Whether the jury was right or wrong in their decision, what’s the point of having a jury if the judge can just make any arbitrary judgement?
I actually root for about 10-12 of these big fatty verdicts to award $400 million to some guy for no apparent reason except he has a patent.
Our patent system is broke, only when it is painfully obvious and affects the “big boys” will it be solved.
#9 Hmeyers
You’re onto something there. It’s only going to change if it hurts the people that can make a change happen.
He “showed” it to Microsoft, who adapted his art but not his technique. Kind of like photoshopping an artwork and selling it on tee shirts. It’s complicated, but Microsoft’s self presumptive leadership role in the IT community should have inhibited it from screwing a small guy.
#5 and #6:
Believe me, I know patent law intimately. And apparently so does the judge.
I’ve had 6 US and foreign patents granted and I am currently working on 2 more.
It is a myth that a patent provides protection against future variations of your invention. In fact it is very much the opposite.
“The government’s purpose behind requiring patentees to adequately disclose their invention is to encourage and enable others to improve upon the patented invention. This way, inventors and research-driven organizations are encouraged to innovate by the exclusive rights afforded by patents, while at the same time they must disclose their inventions in a way that enables others to improve upon them as well.”
So while submitting a patent protects what you have done against someone else, it actually encourages others to improve on what you have done. And as long as the improvement is “not obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art” they can patent it.
The jury didn’t understand this, but the judge did.
Ah Yea–it does all come down to how the facts get arranged. I think the more clear explanation is that if you “take a patent process and then add something to it” that is a patent infringement. If you take a patent process and make something different” then you have a different product.
Awful close?—or just awful?
Awful close!
It often comes down to splitting hairs, but it’s surprising how much difference a little change makes.
Let me use an example.
Say I invented the bolt. It has a shaft with a right hand thread with a hex cut around the circumference of the head. A regular bolt.
Now say you try to patent a bolt which is identical to mine except yours has a left hand thread.
Nope! No patent. This would be an “obvious improvement”.
But now let’s say you try to patent the “Allen Head” bolt. (Lets assume it’s a new invention).
The only difference between your bolt and mine is the hex cut is in a cavity in the head and not around the circumference.
Bingo! You have a new patent!
Is it really a “New and useful” invention? Is it really “Not obvious to those skilled in the art”?
Not really. To me it’s entirely obvious, but you still get the patent because although it accomplishes the same thing that my bolt did, it does so by a slightly different means.
This is why many companies, if they can, opt for the trade secret route. Most patents are not worth the paper they are printed on because it’s so easy to work around them.
Its allowing a judge to overrule a jury a dangerous precedent? What’s with that? Is it normal practise in law?
# 2 Angus,
“But, this is an example of why idot jurists should not be deciding the monetary value of judgements.”
For a judgment to be meaningful it has to be unprofitable. For something to be unprofitable it has to be a meaningful percentage of their income.
When people speed 1 mile over the speed limit they are hit with a ~1% of the median family of 4 income fine. Microsoft annual revenue is ~$60 Billion, $445 Million is less then 1% of that.
It seems very fair and reasonable if indeed Microsoft is profiting off of someone else’s invention, that is; deriving additional revenues from an enabling invention.
Patenting methods is just plain silly.
It most likely was obvious. Most software patents are stupid because they are obvious.
One click rather than two to do something? Come on the people that invented the mouse had to have thought that one over and decided that two clicks would prevent user mistakes while Amazon wants you to make that purchase so they go for one click. Using any number of clicks to do anything is obvious as long as you are using a mouse/trackball.
I heard once that someone made a slight improvement to the common wheel barrel, and got the thing patented. “Prior Art” and “public domain” didn’t appear to matter. I’ll bet a lot of tools, that had just been lying around unpatented. Eventually got one just for being made a bit shinier or something.
When Windows first came on the scene. It was common knowledge that Microsoft had do work for both Apple Computer and Commodore Business Machines. And that they had been given access to both OSes of the Mac and the Amiga, just so Microsoft could write a version of their BASIC for them. Not long after that, Windows appears with a GUI, that seems to have the best of both system’s ideas. They got the two button mouse tricks from the Amiga. And possibly the “shared libraries” idea, too.
Only Apple took Microsoft to court over the “look and feel” aspect of coping their OS ideas. Commodore’s top execs were too busy raiding the company funds to care.