Page All:
Page 1
The antipiracy nutjobs at Microsoft have lost a patent case that was filed by a patent holding company. Specifically, the patent was about product activation. Isn't it ironic that Microsoft willfully infringes on a patent and then uses to to force people to not infringe on its copyrights? Very interesting.
There you go Microsoft, now start complaining how software patents suck...
The antipiracy nutjobs at Microsoft have lost a patent case that was filed by a patent holding company. Specifically, the patent was about product activation. Isn't it ironic that Microsoft willfully infringes on a patent and then uses to to force people to not infringe on its copyrights? Very interesting.
Quote
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.
There you go Microsoft, now start complaining how software patents suck...