RSS
Twitter
Judge Says Jury Screwed Up In Awarding Alcatel-Lucent $1.5 Billion From Microsoft For MP3 Patents
from the so-sorry-about-that dept
Back in February, a jury told Microsoft to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.5 billion for supposedly violating some patents Alcatel-Lucent held on MP3 technology. The case helped highlight the patent thicket around MP3 technologies, as Microsoft had licensed the technology from the creator of the MP3 technology, Fraunhofer. Back in May, as the judge was considering what to do about the jury's award, Alcatel-Lucent actually claimed that $1.5 billion wasn't enough. It appears the judge not only didn't buy that story, but didn't buy the jury's reasoning either. Today he threw out the jury's ruling, noting that Microsoft doesn't even infringe on one of the patents in question, and the other one is jointly owned by Fraunhofer, and therefore Microsoft has a legitimate license to it already. As the judge said, "The jury's verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence." As you might imagine, Alcatel-Lucent is not happy about this, calling the ruling "shocking and disturbing." So, there is likely going to be a long appeals process. However, this is the second time in recent weeks that we're seeing courts take a more reasonable approach on patents. Hopefully, it's the start of a trend.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Juror#1: Fuck microsoft
Juror#2: Yeah lets make them pay like a billion dollars LOL
Juror#3: LMAO 1.5 BILLION
case ajourned
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Juror#4 MacOSX Rules, Microsoft sucks
Juror#5 Unix geeks are the best in bed
Juror#6 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz huh what?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: Anonymous Coward
You need to get a life....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why don't we just get rid of juries and save us all the hassle?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
it is just so much easier to buy off 1 Judge than many jury members.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
admit it Mr. Pissed Off (if that's even your name!)
You just don't enjoy being called in for jury duty.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"By a jury of your peers" my ass...
I bet not ONE of those jury members had committed $1.5bn worth of patent infringement.
Damn court system and its lies...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
it's a relief to see some reason and judgment being inserted into a process that has reached some impressive heights of ridiculousness. I applaud any judge who rules that just because someone holds a patent on "a covering shaped to fit the foot (below the ankle) with a flexible upper of leather, cloth, or plastic and a sole and heel of heavier material" doesn't mean we should all start going barefoot.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's nice that we're seeing the courts take a more reasonable view of patents. It's just such a shame that in this case the beneficiary is just about the world's least deserving, most unsympathetic defendant: Microsoft. :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Measure of justice
It's nice that we're seeing the courts take a more reasonable view of patents. It's just such a shame that in this case the beneficiary is just about the world's least deserving, most unsympathetic defendant: Microsoft. :P
The measure of any justice system is its ability to give the Devil himself a fair trial.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Measure of justice
"The measure of any justice system is its ability to give the Devil himself a fair trial."
Wise words. And how many Americans actually belive it?
Pray for our country.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That's balance for you...
The patent system is in serious need of reform and decisions like these are a good start. But if the system is reformed then not only are law abiding corporations (don't laugh I'm sure there's out there somewhere) benifitting but the not so law abiding corporations are benifitting as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
why have a juries, if a judge can overrule them?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: why have a juries...
Window dressing. Image is everything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Judge Says Jury System Doesn't Work
That about sums it up. Except when poor people are involved. Then juries are just fine.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment