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

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#51

Post by latch »

danssig wrote: post #50
latch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sooo agree with this. Microsoft seems bipolar in its attitude towards patents. I understand why they are happy to sue into markets they aren't dominate, and then be upset at being sued in markets where they are. But they are so enthusiastic at both ends.. I am extremely satisfied with the ruling in this respect. Companies that use silly patents deserve to have silly patents used against them. I agree it could have…

That's a lawyers job. Londo Milari from Babylon 5. The perfect lawyer.

Peter Jurasik did a great job with that fun character. He and Andreas Katsulas had such amazing chemistry.

G'Kar is, by far, my favorite TV sci-fi character and the fact that Mollari was able to stand his own in such a huge shadow is a testament to Mr Jurasik.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#52

Post by danssig »

latch wrote: post #51
danssig wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lawyers job. Londo Milari from Babylon 5. The perfect lawyer.

Peter Jurasik did a great job with that fun character. He and Andreas Katsulas had such amazing chemistry. G'Kar is, by far, my favorite TV sci-fi character and the fact that Mollari was able to stand his own in such a huge shadow is a testament to Mr Jurasik.

Yea, he was amazing. Too bad he doesn't get more big roles.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#53

Post by brlewis »

esoteriq wrote: post #45
brlewis wrote: post #43

The article talks about "taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court", but is that accurate? Reading the Court opinion, it seems like they aren't examining the whole case, but only one particular question of law raised by the case. There's nothing written in the opinion examining whether the patent itself is statutory, novel, and nonobvious; only Microsoft's objection to its validity is mentioned. Can any law gu…

Well, I don't know about law guru, but I did go to law school. Take that for what its worth. I'm not an issues and appeals lawyer, but here's what I know about appeals. Appeals are only for questions of law, never for questions of facts. And the question of law must be unsettled (otherwise, why would SCOTUS take the case?) SCOTUS probably took this case to clarify the defendant's burden of proof regarding invalidity…

Is SCOTUS restricted to just the questions raised to them, or can they make their holding on another question that wasn't raised? For example, could they have said in this case, yes, the lower court applied the right standard for evidence, but the patent itself is nonstatutory following the Flook precedent?

P.S. Law school qualifies as guru for any questions I'm likely to ask.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#54

Post by btilly »

sireat wrote: post #47
btilly wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a well-known patent strategy where you patent a technology, wait for other people to start using it, and then proceed to sue them for large amounts of money. From the point of view of other companies these are hidden traps that could be anywhere. You're just doing business as usual, solving problems, and bam, you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up…

Also known as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent Supposedly harder to pull off these days, but still happens. Any examples of the evil strategy, as in patented stuff getting into standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits is the first that comes to mind.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#55

Post by esoteriq »

brlewis wrote: post #53
esoteriq wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't know about law guru, but I did go to law school. Take that for what its worth. I'm not an issues and appeals lawyer, but here's what I know about appeals. Appeals are only for questions of law, never for questions of facts. And the question of law must be unsettled (otherwise, why would SCOTUS take the case?) SCOTUS probably took this case to clarify the defendant's burden of proof regarding invalidity…

Is SCOTUS restricted to just the questions raised to them, or can they make their holding on another question that wasn't raised? For example, could they have said in this case, yes, the lower court applied the right standard for evidence, but the patent itself is nonstatutory following the Flook precedent? P.S. Law school qualifies as guru for any questions I'm likely to ask.

SCOTUS is indeed limited to the question raised during the appeals process. Even if SCOTUS thought "geez this patent sucks," they can't do anything.

Why not? Well, for better or worse, the American judicial system puts a lot of weight on trial courts and juries' ability to assess facts. The appeals system was set up in such a way to prevent higher courts from actually deciding the case. If SCTOUS had found that the lower courts applied the wrong rule of evidence (burden of proof here), then the case would have gone back to trial and retried (isn't that crazy?).

And trust me, law school doesn't quality everyone as a guru. I have some experience with appeals, but I'm far from an issue & appeals lawyer (they're pros at this). So, take my words with a grain of salt.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#56

Post by kmfrk »

btilly wrote: post #44
petegrif wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't understand the point you are making. Would you mind elaborating? Thanks.

There is a well-known patent strategy where you patent a technology, wait for other people to start using it, and then proceed to sue them for large amounts of money. From the point of view of other companies these are hidden traps that could be anywhere. You're just doing business as usual, solving problems, and bam, you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up…

> you're told that you weren't allowed to think of obvious idea X because someone has a patent, pay up $10 million dollars. (Actual dollar amount varies widely.)

And that's not counting the torturous legal fees, if you wish to try your luck at court in a case that is likely to drag on for eons.

Re: Supreme Court rules against Microsoft in major patent case

#57

Post by bandushrew »

petegrif wrote: post #41
bandushrew wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

computer code is 'just' an algorithm. that is simply true. if algorithms cannot be patented then neither can computer code.

data structures?

huh? they contain data. unless you are claiming that the presence of this:

struct twiggle { int t; }

somehow makes patenting the code that uses it a sensible idea?

Post reply on HN