It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Aussie inventor's $445m Microsoft windfall wiped out

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:47 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:49 PM

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.

I have experienced the same thing. In my experience, during jury selection they asked some hypothetical questions. Anyone who gave an intelligent answer was dismissed. The ones who didn't seem to understand the question or just gave some really stupid answer were the ones kept on.

What was that saying.... something about juries being stupid because they were the ones not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:53 PM
Patent speculation is the most vile thing on earth. If you raise a patent issue against a company for something that probably crosses over with words like "the" and "program" you deserve to be deducted money.

He's probably a Mac user anyways.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
lol, why would this be any different than what happened in the beginning of microsofts start to dominate the tech world?
graphic based OS: developed by Xerox, stole by apple, stole by bill gates
mouse : created by Xerox, stole by apple, stole by bill gates....

oh yeah and the fact that Microsoft/Verichip is in bed together is writing the code to go for the RFID tags im sure has not had any basis on the Judges decision

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:02 PM

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.

First off anyone having HUNDRED OF MILLIONS IS RETARDED.

awarding it for someone who made more than that amount off of something you developed and hold a patent on is not.

I disagree with the judges decision as do you, because you said yourself he should get something, where as the Judge's decision he gets NADA! so how can you "agree" then state that "he should still be rewarded something" you have contradicted yourself, think about it.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:02 PM
I am guessing Mr Smiths bank balance just went up a couple of zeros.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
I am guessing Mr Smiths bank balance just went up a couple of zeros.

1 line post?

not a mod but, u should note that. Who is Mr. Smith? the Judge? if he is, then surely his bank account went up atleast 6 0's, and who says 0's are nothing?

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:39 PM

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.

The Uniloc patent was registered in 1992 in Australia. I didn't know there was a difference in patent holdings for different countries - suprising when orgs like Macdonalds can try and attempt to sue little companies in places like the phillipines. But it was registered in the US in 1996.

Windows 95 came out in, well.. 1995.

I tend t agree tho, I can't see how "Try and Buy" is different than other software that expires after a set period unless registered.

Wheel Patented

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.

Hahah Love it.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:57 PM
Sounds like Defcon5 adequately explained why this is a good decision to overturn it.

I could see a jury not understanding it at all.

Now if the award was something like $20 million, it may not have been overturned... or he could have settled it maybe?

Sounds like GREED to me.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:02 PM
I'm most concerned about the judge over riding the jury's decision in this case.

Why didn't the judge hearing the OJ trial over ride the jury in that case? If we are going to be doing that.

What ever happened? Trial by peers being revoked by a single judge?

Sounds like he could sue the judge or at least to me seems like a perfectly viable option.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Darthorious

First, the OJ trial was criminal. This was a civil action.
Second, in the OJ trial, the prosecution failed to make their case. In criminal law, it is the prosecution that MUST make the case. The defense need do nothing but show up (right to face the accuser). In a civil action, one side can chose to not show up, and a judgment against them will be entered. Both sides actively contest in a civil action, and only a preponderance of the evidence is required. To make it clear, a preponderance is the slightest bit more on one side of the scale than the other. Civil law does not deal with 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is a criminal standard.

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:19 AM
Latest News Update:

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.

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:38 AM
So why have jury trials at all? I think the judge should be investigated to see how much Microsoft Stock he has just received and perform a through background check on this judge.

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:44 AM
reply to post by Kryties

I'm glad they are appealing. I can't believe that Smith was used again. This guy had a vendetta after his ruling was usurped the first time. It cannot be deemed ethical for him to reside over the case a second time. One could suggest a major conflict of interests. This stinks to high heaven.

Keep the updates coming Kryties!


posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 03:57 AM
Yeah, something's really not right about this. I dunno why Microsoft would even worry about that amount of money, anyway. They should've paid the complainant.

The judge was probably Microsoft Sam.

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:19 AM
If a judge can do this, whats jury nullification???

And how the hell did OJ get off?


posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:00 AM
this thing stinks .... the more I learn the less I like it

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in