rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Doesn't make sense... I understand Microsoft licensed the technology and paid fees to Fraunhofer. How is Fraunhofer awarded a patent to which a company pays them fees if a third party can win a judgement for that same technology?
Obviously Fraunhofer may not have a valid patent but if true, will Fraunhofer be sued by MS for damages resulting from the false patent?
My guess is $1.5B can be absorbed by MS but if MS is successful at passing those damages to Fraunhofer, it would ruin them.
Although I think the amount is questionable, the jury must have convincing facts that Lucent has reasonable claim. Somewhere inside Microsoft there's a very nervous patent lawyer who advised them that they only had to pay Fraunhofer. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | trust me if MS where to take legal action against Fraunhofer i bet the RIAA would join in(since they created MP3 and thats what most pirate songs are.....)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:the jury must have convincing facts that Lucent has reasonable claim. Juries for corporate cases don't give a crap about either company. Do you think any of those jury members can even relate to $1.5 billion dollars or even put into perspective? Only when it involves someone vs. the government is when people care because they don't want their tax money going to someone else. |
|
|
|
 birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5 | reply to rradina
From the article:
Microsoft argued that one patent in question did not apply to its MP3 software and that the other was included in the Fraunhofer software that it paid to license.
Moreover, it argued that the damages sought by Alcatel were unreasonably high, pointing out that it paid Thomson, which represented the consortium in its dealings over the patent, a flat $16 million fee for the rights to the MP3 software.
“We think this is just plain wrong,” Mr. Burt said. “They told the jury to measure damages, not on the value to Microsoft of one of the 10,000 features in Windows, but on the value of the entire computer.”
Alcatel argued that the damages should be based on a royalty of 0.5 percent of the total value of Windows computers sold.
John M. Desmarais, a partner with Kirkland & Ellis who represented Alcatel, said the proposed damages were consistent with patent law. He said it was not appropriate to compare them with the $16 million Microsoft paid Thomson because the rights to the Bell Labs patents were far more valuable.
“It’s like going to the supermarket and paying $1 for a bar of soap,” he said. “That lets you use the soap. We were offering the equivalent of the right to make soap any way they wanted.”
The jury supported Alcatel’s arguments on every count except one. It deadlocked on the question of whether Microsoft willfully infringed on the Bell Labs patents. If the jury had found that it did, Microsoft would have had to pay triple damages. said by rradina:I understand Microsoft licensed the technology and paid fees to Fraunhofer. If they licensed the "software", but not the technology, then Microsoft didn't pay enough people off.
said by rradina:Obviously Fraunhofer may not have a valid patent but if true, will Fraunhofer be sued by MS for damages resulting from the false patent? My guess is $1.5B can be absorbed by MS but if MS is successful at passing those damages to Fraunhofer, it would ruin them. Maybe, and their defense is they didn't represent themselves as holder of the patent, but as developer of the software.
said by rradina:Although I think the amount is questionable, the jury must have convincing facts that Lucent has reasonable claim. Somewhere inside Microsoft there's a very nervous patent lawyer who advised them that they only had to pay Fraunhofer. It was a calculated risk on the part of Microsoft.
In case you've never been called to jury duty, you should be aware that what the jury decides depends on the facts presented, and the credibility of who presents it.
I was on a jury hearing a medical malpractice suit. The lawyer for the doctor was pretty slick, but no-nonsense. The lawyer for the plaintiff was either incompetent, or was playing as a "country lawyer just looking for justice." He had a good chance until he came back to court after a coupla martini lunch. He flubbed his facts so badly, I felt sorry for the plaintiffs, but they eventually lost because he did not do a good job.
Should the jury have found for the plaintiffs? No. There was not sufficient evidence the doctor was guilty. We only had the facts presented to us to decide. We cannot make stuff up just because we have a prior opinion.
As a matter of fact, that's what jury selection is supposed to uncover: prior opinions.
Presentation is everything. That's why good lawyers make good money. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | said by birdfeedr:...Presentation is everything. That's why good lawyers make good money. One would think that Microsoft pays for the best... |
|
