August 23, 2006 10:31 AM PDT
Patent verdict against Microsoft, Autodesk stands
- Related Stories
-
Red Hat sued over JBoss technology
June 30, 2006 -
Microsoft not out of legal woods yet
October 11, 2005 -
Microsoft loses in Eolas patent ruling
September 29, 2005 -
Sun settles with Microsoft, announces layoffs
April 2, 2004 -
Microsoft ordered to pay $521 million
August 11, 2003
U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis turned down the software makers' request for a new trial in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Z4 Technologies and awarded enhanced damages, ordering Microsoft and Autodesk to pay a combined total of $158 million.
The initial suit was filed nearly two years ago by David Colvin, owner of Michigan-based
In a verdict reached April 19, a jury found that Microsoft and Autodesk had violated Colvin's patents; the companies' subsequent request for a new trial was turned down Friday. Microsoft is expected to challenge the verdict in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Representatives for Microsoft and Autodesk, which had asked for a new trial on the basis that the patents were unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, were not readily available. The counsel for Z4 declined to comment.
Not only has the original verdict been upheld, but Microsoft's patent penalty has also been increased by $25 million for enhanced damages, bringing its total bill to $140 million. It also must pay an estimated $2 million in legal fees.
It's the second-biggest patent infringement fee that Microsoft has had to fork over to a smaller company, surpassed only by the $500-plus million that the Redmond, Wash.-based software behemoth was
The penalty for San Rafael, Calif.-based Autodesk, originally $18 million, has been increased by $322,000.
The East Texas Federal District Court is a frequent destination for patent infringement complaints, like
See more CNET content tagged:
Autodesk Inc.,
verdict,
federal judge,
trial,
Microsoft Corp.
Coincidense?
I don't think so.
This is yet another reason why patents in software is a bad thing. Copyrights are all software needs to be thoroughly protected. Imagine if all the great algorithms that are still in use today but were developed 30-40 years ago were patented. What if the OS was, or word processor.
Too many companies are coming up with obviouos ideas with prior art, not even implementing them, just patenting them and waiting for their cash cow to arrive.
Software is not anything like a real invention, especially when the patent applicant has only a vague idea not an implementation. But even attached to a real implimentation it is still a bogus patent,
Software is very much like a book, which any sane person would agree can not be patented. Software is just words in a certain order. All this talk about some new software being "new technology" is total crap. It is just words that do something that might be new, but the words and order of them are generally not new.
These software companies that are bottom feeding on others are holding back the software industry. Yes, it is delicious irony when a massive patent abuser like MS gets smashed in the face, but it is still wrong.
Luckily, most of the important tech countries are moving towards a total ban on patents, which will help the US towards the necessary goal of stopping predatory companies that create nothing, but suck out the life of companies that are doing real work.
Patents stifle innovation, period.