Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

techflash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#21

Post by esoteriq »

I don't think the article does the case justice.

If you look at the holding, the Court just says that all invalidity defenses must be established by "clear and convincing evidence" (higher than preponderance of evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.)

It has been well-established that patent validity is a basic assumption. So, a plaintiff must prove patent invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The issue here is once the plaintiff establishes patent invalidity, how much evidence does the defendant need to give to rebut the assumption of invalidity. The Court said that the higher standard of proof, not the lower standard of proof.

Maybe I'm being thickheaded here, but I don't see how that's terrible at all. In fact, it makes things equal. Once the plaintiff shows patent invalidity, it shouldn't be that easy for a defendant to rebut the assumption of invalidity.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#22

Post by mvalle »

I like this bit from the article:

"Smaller companies that held patents worried that if Microsoft prevailed, it could lower the standard of proof for invalidating a patent, crippling small companies that depend on patent protection, legal experts say."

Other than patent trolls, which small (software) company benefits from (software) patents?

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#23

Post by petegrif »

Joeri wrote: post #19
petegrif wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's so ridiculous theyre essentially patenting generic syntaxes for representing documents that anybody "skilled in the art" would come up with in 5 minutes." now - sure but then? - apparently not as extensive litigation demonstrated. And that 'non-obvious' nature back then - that's kinda the point, hindsight effect is a powerful thing

Which is exactly why if you're in favor of software patents you should at least be in favor of a shortening of the duration. 20 years is an eternity for software.

I am in favor of software patents and I am in favor of shortening the duration. (In this context we somehow have to reform USPTO so that they can get a patent out in less than 3-5 years! remember this time comes off the term of the patent) :)

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#24

Post by petegrif »

mvalle wrote: post #22

I like this bit from the article: "Smaller companies that held patents worried that if Microsoft prevailed, it could lower the standard of proof for invalidating a patent, crippling small companies that depend on patent protection, legal experts say." Other than patent trolls, which small (software) company benefits from (software) patents?

i4i is exactly such a small company.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#25

Post by petegrif »

rwmj wrote: post #20
petegrif wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@aroberge - that is absolutely correct. Part of the reason that MS were hit so hard is precisely because they knowingly and willfully infringed.

Except that the big idea -- transform the XML and present it in Word -- is obvious.

@rwmj - the question is not whether it is obvious now but rather was their invention obvious then. Do you have any reason to believe it was obvious then? Remember that this very question has been litigated with MS doing everything in their power to demonstrate it was indeed obvious then, that there was prior art, and they failed! So it is easy to allege something like this now but I suspect that you are suffering from the hindsight effect and don't actually have any evidence supporting your claim of obviousness. I don't doubt your sincerity and I don't mean to be rude, I just don't think you are likely to have done the research (as MS and their attorneys did!) to prove it was obvious THEN.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#26

Post by petegrif »

RomP wrote: post #18

This is an abomination. This patent clearly fails the obviousness test (that is, if somebody is capable of reading the patent all the way through without being disgusted and embarrassed for the "inventors"). Unfortunately, most of the software patents are like this: the Patent Office is clearly failing us. Math formulas are not patentable, and software is just that: math. Seems like our only hope is if somebody power…

@romp please see my post above about 'the obviousness test' IMHO this relationship between patents and what is obvious is the source of a huge amount of misunderstanding about and opposition to patents. I have no problem with serious discussions about patent reform, but surely such a serious discussion should be based on a substantive understanding of reality not popular misconceptions? Let's all get clear on what is meant by 'obvious' in the context of patents and that will help us move things along.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#27

Post by hamner »

haberman wrote: post #13

To me, the scariest part was: U.S. solicitor general, which represents the federal government, filed a brief in support of i4i, saying that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office should not be second-guessed by a jury. The Patent and Trademark Office absolutely should be second-guessed by a jury. Judges and juries are the only sanity-check the whole system has at this point!

Agree completely, had just copied the quote and was about to paste it to say the same thing. When we consider all the BS patents that have been rubber-stamped by the PTO, this is a very scary proposal.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#28

Post by kenjackson »

esoteriq wrote: post #21

I don't think the article does the case justice. If you look at the holding, the Court just says that all invalidity defenses must be established by "clear and convincing evidence" (higher than preponderance of evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.) It has been well-established that patent validity is a basic assumption. So, a plaintiff must prove patent invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The i…

Except for the fact that the PTO isn't an adversarial system. It would be different if prior to you getting a patent you had to go to court against companies who think you shouldn't have it.

And now that you have a patent and sue somebody, this other person may be able to put together some evidence that shows the patent is invalid, but they must climb a very high bar now.

In this case MS had prior art in a past i4i product that appeared to have the functionality that i4i had patented. i4i says it was different, but the source code had been destroyed. Had this challenge been brought up during the original patent examination, they could have pressed i4i to prove that this didn't infringe. But once i4i has the patent now MS must prove that it does, w/o the source code.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#29

Post by kenjackson »

petegrif wrote: post #25
rwmj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the big idea -- transform the XML and present it in Word -- is obvious.

@rwmj - the question is not whether it is obvious now but rather was their invention obvious then. Do you have any reason to believe it was obvious then? Remember that this very question has been litigated with MS doing everything in their power to demonstrate it was indeed obvious then, that there was prior art, and they failed! So it is easy to allege something like this now but I suspect that you are suffering fro…

The obviousness test is basically off the table after the patent has been granted. This is one of the things that is problematic with the system. Patent examiners tend to be too lenient, but the end result is you now hold a patent that is very difficult to overturn.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#30

Post by kmfrk »

petegrif wrote: post #14
reader5000 wrote: post #5

It's so ridiculous theyre essentially patenting generic syntaxes for representing documents that anybody "skilled in the art" would come up with in 5 minutes. It would have been much better for small developers if Microsoft won this. It's funny how this is treated as a win for the little guys, who can't afford massive patent portfolios nor litigation battles like Microsoft.

"It's so ridiculous theyre essentially patenting generic syntaxes for representing documents that anybody "skilled in the art" would come up with in 5 minutes." now - sure but then? - apparently not as extensive litigation demonstrated. And that 'non-obvious' nature back then - that's kinda the point, hindsight effect is a powerful thing

There is however the argument of prior art, so it still takes a little brain-racking to do.

Patents are more about digging some holes in the forest and covering them up, after which you go home and cross your fingers that someone steps into one of them in the future.

Post reply on HN