Microsoft Ordered to Pay $200 Million in Patent Case

[onehandle]

Source: Fox News

LOS ANGELES — Microsoft Corp said on Wednesday a Texas federal jury ordered the company to pay Canadian software firm i4i Ltd $200 million in damages for infringing a patent.

The world's largest software company, which is involved in a number of legal battles over patents, said the award was unsupported, and plans to appeal.

Last month, Microsoft was ordered to pay $388 million in damages for infringing a patent held by anti-piracy software maker Uniloc Inc. It also appealing that verdict.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520952,00.html

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. I don't care that it's Microsoft getting the shaft. (An otherwise joyful event.)

Software patents are still a bad idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_against_patentability

[Soylent Brice]

3. yes they are.

and agree with your statement.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. And here's another link about the subject:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/lpf/Patents/against-software-patents.html

[Soylent Brice]

9. bootleg:

"For example, Apple was sued because the Hypercard program allegedly violates patent number 4,736,308, a patent that covers displaying portions of two or more strings together on the screen--effectively, scrolling with multiple subwindows. Scrolling and subwindows are well-known techniques, but combining them is now apparently illegal."

wow.

[Amonester]

2. Woohoo... the lazy and worst coders will pay for what they stole...

It's not like they didn't steal enough to pay what Justice tell them to pay...

[dipsydoodle]

5. The issue is usually

the money they've made to date through such practices far exceeding the penalties for doing do.

[Dumak]

4. It's pretty shocking, the kinds of things that have been granted patents

You can't even create a basic lookup-table without finding that it's been patented. I don't particularly sympathize with Microsoft, as they've been engaged in some pretty devious marketing practices over the years, but way too many software patents apply to such obvious processes - things so obvious that it wouldn't even occur to most people that they might be patentable.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. "i4i"? That's a warning right there. nt

[jsamuel]

8. "ordered to pay $388 million in damages for infringing a patent held by anti-piracy software maker"

irony?