Microsoft willfully infringed on the patents of a small Michigan company and engaged in litigation misconduct in its effort to defend itself, a federal judge ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis upped a jury's award against Microsoft by $25 million, plus nearly $2 million in legal costs. He cited several instances of misconduct and "ample circumstantial evidence" that Microsoft viewed the patent-holder, closely held z4 Technologies, as "a small and irrelevant company that was not worthy of Microsoft's time and attention, even if Microsoft was potentially infringing its patents."
The case centers on patents held by z4 founder and President David Colvin for "product activation" technology, designed to limit software piracy. z4 alleged Microsoft Office products infringed on its patents beginning in 2000; the alleged Windows operating system infringement began in 2001.
z4 sued in September 2004 and won a jury verdict of $115 million from Microsoft and $18 million from another defendant, Autodesk, the computer-aided design software maker. The judge added $322,000 in z4 legal costs to Autodesk's penalty.
In addition to granting z4's motions seeking enhanced damages Friday, Davis also rejected motions by the defendants for a new trial and other judgments.
"I'm very gratified that the process works," Colvin said Monday. "... It's certainly good news to me and really good news to all the small companies and independent inventors alike in this country."
News source: Seattle Times
U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis upped a jury's award against Microsoft by $25 million, plus nearly $2 million in legal costs. He cited several instances of misconduct and "ample circumstantial evidence" that Microsoft viewed the patent-holder, closely held z4 Technologies, as "a small and irrelevant company that was not worthy of Microsoft's time and attention, even if Microsoft was potentially infringing its patents."
The case centers on patents held by z4 founder and President David Colvin for "product activation" technology, designed to limit software piracy. z4 alleged Microsoft Office products infringed on its patents beginning in 2000; the alleged Windows operating system infringement began in 2001.
z4 sued in September 2004 and won a jury verdict of $115 million from Microsoft and $18 million from another defendant, Autodesk, the computer-aided design software maker. The judge added $322,000 in z4 legal costs to Autodesk's penalty.
In addition to granting z4's motions seeking enhanced damages Friday, Davis also rejected motions by the defendants for a new trial and other judgments.
"I'm very gratified that the process works," Colvin said Monday. "... It's certainly good news to me and really good news to all the small companies and independent inventors alike in this country."
News source: Seattle Times
NOTE: I'm normally against this type of litigation (like the eolas patent), but in this case, the technology should be prevented from becoming wide-spread. If litigation help, then I'm all for it.
Karma SUCKS!
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34692
indeed it does.
I think that before any of these sorts of patents can be enforced, the company that is suing should have to provide evidence that they had at least a proof of concept software before the other company released it into production.
"U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis upped a jury's award against Microsoft by $25 million, plus nearly $2 million in legal costs. He cited several instances of misconduct and "ample circumstantial evidence" that Microsoft viewed the patent-holder, closely held z4 Technologies, as "a small and irrelevant company that was not worthy of Microsoft's time and attention, even if Microsoft was potentially infringing its patents."
If you are going to use someone elses patent and then ignore them when they ask you what's going on, then you are generally going to get yourself in trouble no matter how many billions you have in the bank.
Unisys acquired rights to LZH compression used in GIF files, and suddenly demanded licensing royalties and payments (with the "or else" of litigation hanging in their demands).
Microsoft has also done the same with their FAT patents, suddenly creating a licensing system to collect royalties. And, for those who infringe without payment.... Lawsuit time.
It seems that it doesn't really matter how long one lets their patent get freely used by others. They can turn it into a litigation money-maker at any time, and Microsoft is as guilty as these other guys.
I think that patents should be more limited. Instead of a patent saying "Sends off information about the user and machine and recieves auth code" it should be more like "sends off 'a', 'b' and 'c' to the server in 'd' way. The server then does 'e' and returns the code as an 'f' to the client software" - detail is where it's all at. You should not be sued for patent violation unless your product is ~95% the same.
Did you read the posting?
Kinda like the big bully at school who takes other kids' milk money.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.