I'd like to have a fling with Eva Glass. Please send photo
|
|
|
Aussie appeals Microsoft patent win
IT LOOKS LIKE the Aussie inventor who won a patent case against Microsoft for $388 million only to have the jury's verdict overridden by the judge has appealed.
Australian inventor Ric Richardson told the Sydney Morning Herald that the possibility the judge was biased ought to be looked at seriously.
US District Judge William Smith this week reversed an earlier decision by a jury to award the whopping sum to Richardson.
The jury unanimously decided that the Vole had infringed Richardson's patent relating to technology designed to deter unauthorised copying of software.
Richardson said that existing case law should be explored because it's highly irregular for a judge to overrule a jury and, given the history of the case, his possible bias must be considered.
It is the second time that Judge Smith has ruled in favour of the Vole in the case. The first time he wanted to chuck the case out without even putting it to a jury trial. That decision was overturned on appeal.
When the jury ruled in favour of Richardson, Smith decided to set its verdict aside in favour of the Vole. He claimed that the jury didn't know what it was doing.
Richardson said he believed the jury's verdict was thoughtful, well reasoned and supported by the evidence presented.
Smith and Richardson are not the best of friends. During the first appeal his lawyers asked that a new judge be appointed to handle the case but that request was denied.
Richardson's company Uniloc had claimed the judgment was tainted because Judge Smith had employed an intern with ties to Microsoft to help review the evidence, although the appeals court found that did not have a material impact.
The appeals court didn't think the judge was biased because the intern had no financial stake in the outcome of the case. µ
Share this:
Share
Was the patent CRAP? Obviously. Should he have won the court case? Maybe. Under current patent law, his "invention" was infringed upon by the Vole. The proper avenue would have been to void his patent, but that would set a helluva bad precedent for Vole, as they have shed loads of BS patents they want to keep for leverage against competition.
The judge did exactly as he was instructed by Vole, which was all he could do the maintain the status quo but yet rule in Vole's favor.
Paid in full.
I believe Uniloc’s so-called invention is nothing more than a rehash of much older ideas and technologies that already existed.
They judge ruled against them fundamentally because their encryption technology is nothing like the better, stronger encryption method used by Microsoft.
Nothwithstanding that, a little history...
Firstly, the whole try before you buy idea was popularised by Bob Wallace in 1983 with the release of his shareware software PC-Write, a word processor that you could trial for free and register if you liked it. (see http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v2/2_4_html/2_4_08_Waddell.html).
This concept was adopted by hundreds of software authors in the 80’s, and quickly evolved to include time limits and activation keys long before Uniloc. Users enjoyed the ability to try a fully functional product before purchase. However, even Wallace acknowledged he got the term shareware, which embodies the whole try before you buy idea, from a computer column that appeared in Infoworld magazine in the 70’s.
Secondly, software protection schemes that relied on hardware to generate security keys were common-place in the mid 80’s. Australian software company Pittwater Distributors developed an application called Cashbook in the early 80’s which used a plug-in hardware dongle (a small hardware key) in order to secure the application. Other companies such as Alpha-Micro and Sun-MicroSystems used serial numbers stored in the physical hardware of the computer.
I personally worked on a software encryption and protection systems in 1984 for game publisher Electronic Arts which relied on keys derived from the physical software media (a tape or disk). This approach was extremely common-place at the time.
In short, software trial mechanisms and protection systems were obvious, common-place technologies and marketing models long before Uniloc.
I agree with the judge.
@nic:
It would be simpler to take all 776 millions directly from Microsoft, the judge is most likely on their payroll anyway.
I say charge MS 388 million, and the judge another 388 million!
Once this gets up to the supreme court (because it'll never end...not for a third of a billion dollars) they'll rule in favor of Richardson solely because a Jury did...a judge flipping that just 'because' would set a dangerous precedent.
This is why we have a jury system at all.
IF the aussie already won he case it is difficult to accept that the Judge was Bias. If this were a different Judge that had no connection to Microsoft whatsoever then it would make sense. How can they say that the Microsoft intern(Microsoft Minion!) have no Impact on the Judge.(Total BS, its Common sense) And why would Microsoft Intern be with a Judge wouldn't the intern be trying to figure out ways to charge people for nothing.(Xbox Live=$50, Windows Live=Charging Developers for updating their PC game, OS too expensive)
oh course it was a thoughtful and well reasoned verdict you were getting $388 Million