It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by craig732
People are now wrongfully stating in news articles that the judge ruled in favor of Microsoft. He didn't. The judge in this case felt the jury did not grasp the concept of the facts of the case and he VACATED the jury's decision.
I worry about how well a typical jury can understand the facts of a technology case. One reason for this is I sat through a jury selection process recently, and the first thing they seem to do is kick out all the smart people. Everyone with an MD, PhD, etc was gone in the first round of eliminations. Next was the people with masters level educations, I'm serious.
It seems like they wanted the least educated people they could find as far as I could tell, hoping that they might be more easily baffled with BS if they didn't have all the education to understand everything about the case.
So acully I don't find it that shocking a judge would vacate a jury's decision of they showed they didn't grasp the facts of the case. Maybe for technical cases, we need to come up with a way to select juries with the technical knowledge to grasp the facts of the case instead of perhaps trying to do the opposite and select the least qualified jurors.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Awarding hundreds of millions of dollars to anyone for anything is absolutely retarded.
I agree with the judge's decision.
However, I think the man should probably get around 4 million $.
That would set him up for life and he could be happy.
Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
I am guessing Mr Smiths bank balance just went up a couple of zeros.
Originally posted by defcon5
I quickly skimmed through the Judges reasoning for overturning the ruling, and I would say that he has a good reason to. I have used both shareware unlocking keys, and Microsoft Registration Keys, and they do not operate in the same way. Besides this, I know that Microsoft has been using Registration Keys since at least Windows 95, well before Unilocks Patent.
An Australian man has been issued with an innovation patent for the wheel after setting out to test the workability of a new national patent system.
John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device" under a patent system introduced in May 2001.
Bias claim: Aussie to appeal against $445m Microsoft loss
Australian inventor Ric Richardson will appeal against a ruling by a US judge that snatched a $US388 million ($445 million) Microsoft damages award from between his fingers, saying "bias has to be look at seriously".
This week US District Judge William Smith reversed an earlier decision by a jury to award the whopping sum to Uniloc, the company Richardson founded, after finding Microsoft had violated its patent relating to technology designed to deter software piracy.
Even though the case has already run for six years, Uniloc said in a statement that it would not back down and planned to take the matter to the US Court of Appeals.
In a phone interview today, Richardson said: "The existing case law has to be explored because it's highly irregular for a judge to overrule a jury and, given his history, bias has to be looked at seriously."
Uniloc said it believed the jury's original verdict was thoughtful, well reasoned and supported by the evidence presented.
In overturning the verdict, Judge Smith said the jury "lacked a grasp of the issues before it" and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis.
"We are disappointed by the decision the trial judge has made to overturn the jury's unanimous verdict in Uniloc's patent infringement case against Microsoft," Uniloc said.
"Since the patent status remains unchanged, Uniloc will continue to protect its intellectual property and appeal the judge's decision to override the jury's verdict to the US Court of Appeals. We are confident that Uniloc will ultimately prevail."
As Uniloc's founder and major shareholder, Richardson was set to reap a significant part of the damages bill. Earlier this week he was "shocked" by the decision.
Some have accused Richardson of being a "patent troll" but today he rejected this claim, saying "a patent troll is someone that doesn’t execute a business and just tries to make money out of patents, but we’ve been at this for 16 years".
It is not clear when the case will next be heard, but sparks will inevitably fly in the courtroom. Judge Smith had also ruled against Uniloc in 2006, before an appeals court overturned his decision on the grounds that a ruling should not have been made without hearing from a jury.
During that appeal, Uniloc also asked for the case to be heard by a new judge, but that request was denied.
The company 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 this did not have a material impact.
"The District Court concluded that an objective, knowledgeable member of the public would not find reasonable basis in doubting the judge's impartiality, given that the intern had no financial stake in the outcome of the case," it found.
Despite a Rhode Island jury finding in Uniloc's favour in April, Judge Smith would not be swayed.
Uniloc brought the case against Microsoft in 2003, arguing the software giant earned billions of dollars by using its technology in its Windows XP and Office programs.
"From day one I've always said this is an ethical position - my wife and I are happy with our lives, we've got what we need, so this is about the principal of it," Richardson said.