Court Rules Microsoft, Autodesk Must Pay $133 Million
Posted by malebolgia on 20 April 2006 - 14:18 · 20 comments & 7573 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by rIaHc3 on 20 Apr 2006 - 14:21
- When will people stop the trend of sueing Microsoft.......
Someone get these baby companies a pacifier because all they do is cry and bitch when a company is doing alot better than them.
-
#2 Posted by thejohnnyq on 20 Apr 2006 - 14:25
- Steal someones Idea, Patent it, and claim to be original thought, get $133 million.
MS needs to fight this big time, as this case will effect many other cases and could end up hurting the end users.
-
#3 Posted by cybershark on 20 Apr 2006 - 14:39
- Some more software patent BS.
The fool at the patent office who allowed this fool to patent software activation should be shot.
-
#4 Posted by Joni_78 on 20 Apr 2006 - 14:53
- Thats what you get for supporting software patents.
-
#5 Posted by angrybrit on 20 Apr 2006 - 14:57
- I need a Patent.
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by Croquant on 20 Apr 2006 - 17:45
- Stick it to the man!
-
#7 Posted by toadeater on 20 Apr 2006 - 19:39
- Has anyone patented software patents yet?
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by Banzai on 20 Apr 2006 - 20:25
- god please america give it up software patents dont work! you cant patent an idea. Whats wrong with america. Thank god we dont have this problem in the uk.
-
#8.1 Posted by Night Hawk on 20 Apr 2006 - 21:00
- They should make it so you can't patent software. I mean seriously, a patent on software activation? That's just not right.
-
#8.2 Posted by MazX_Napalm on 21 Apr 2006 - 06:15
- ..... Yet
-
#9 Posted by DefensiveCore on 20 Apr 2006 - 20:35
- How on earth did these people win in court.
"(From ./)6044471
This one deals with a system where you provide information to the company and are given a code. When you install the software you are required to enter the code or series of codes and it checks with the companies databases and veries that the password and other info is correct. There are clauses in it to deal with multiple passwords, and shutting down software that has incorrectly entered password.
6785825
This is kind of like the first but instead you are provided a key with the software which provided use for a limited time. Then during that time you are required to call the registration company and provide information and you receive an additional code which then unlocks the software for future use. "
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by Chugworth on 20 Apr 2006 - 21:08
- I have about decided that 99% of lawsuits are no more than legalized theft.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by MNS on 20 Apr 2006 - 22:56
- the american judicial system is laughable.
i thought i would expand on it, but let's leave it at that. i laugh at the american judicial system. it's very funny, yes.
it's like person A patents something, then person B copies it, then A sues them for millions, B pretends it didn't copy it, A wins and B pays millions, and B is like "yeah, we feel this isn't right, but we gave them some money, oh well.". and everyone's content with that? what's the matter with people?
-
#12 Posted by fevoldj2 on 21 Apr 2006 - 05:38
- Sounds like something Microsoft does. I can't believe you're bashing this guy when Microsoft does this kind of thing all the time.
-
#13 Posted by SwitchBlade on 21 Apr 2006 - 06:43
- Why were they dissapointed in the result?
Microsoft was ordered to pay $115 million, and Autodesk was required to pay $18 million to David Colvin, the founder of z4 Technologies Inc., who sued the two software companies in federal court, claiming they appropriated two of his anti-piracy software patents with Microsoft's Office and Windows XP and Autodesk's AutoCad programs, the spokeswoman said.
"While we are disappointed with this verdict, we continue to contend that there was no infringement of any kind and that the facts in this case show that Microsoft developed its own product activation technologies well before z4 Technologies filed for its patent," Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said in an e-mail response.