- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
And let that be a reminder...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DrDubious Jul 28, 2012 1:53 PM EDT |
...to all those European users who keep saying "well, WE don't have software patents here, so we don't have to worry about that." (Wasn't this patent invalidated? Or was that only in the US?) |
| Fettoosh Jul 28, 2012 2:34 PM EDT |
You are correct DrDubious, it was invalidated in the US, here is a helpful link Torvalds Invalidates Microsoft FAT Patent and Here More links found on Google But that is in the US not in Germany. I believe the same reason could be good enough to invalidate it anywhere, unless MS finds a corrupt judge some where. |
| linux4567 Jul 28, 2012 3:08 PM EDT |
That is a first instance ruling of a lower regional court, and according to some comments I read on German forums Motorola never brought up the argument that the patent itself is invalid as it's a software patent, most likely because Motorola/Google doesn't want to automatically invalidate all their own software Patents as a consequence. Regardless of the reason why Motorola/Google didn't bring up the 'software patents are invalid' argument, in a civil case (at least in a Roman law system like Germany uses) the judge purely decides on the arguments brought up by each side. If no side questions the validity of software patents in principle, then the judge won't do that either. |
| Fettoosh Jul 28, 2012 4:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:Motorola never brought up the argument that the patent itself is invalid as it's a software patent, most likely because Motorola/Google doesn't want to automatically invalidate all their own software Patents as a consequence. But Motorola/Google don't have to bring up the issue of software patents are invalid, all they need to do is to indicate that this particular patent is invalid by citing this 20-year-old technical discussion/reference I think it should be sufficient. But, I believe they want to take the case to a higher level court and have MS pay penalty when it is invalidated, as this article indicates. Quoting:The injunction is not final, as Microsoft will have to put up a security deposit of €10 million to €30 million ($12.4 million to $37 million), for the court to keep in case Motorola appeals and is found not guilty of patent infringement in a second suit. |
| helios Jul 28, 2012 4:51 PM EDT |
($12.4 million to $37 million) While that sounds like a lot of money, it's just a rounding error when calculating their cash reserves. It should be much, much more. |
Post a reply to this thread:
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post