Microsoft guilty in VPN patent case
Microsoft's implementation of VPN technologies in Windows falls foul of two VirnetX patents, rules a jury.
As reported over on DigitalTrends, a jury in Tyler, Texas has found Microsoft guilty of willful infringement of two patents on VPN technologies originally developed by the Science Applications International Corporation for the US Central Intelligence Agency, and currently owned by VPN specialist VirnetX.
The case, which has been ongoing since 2007, claimed that Microsoft infringed a pair of SAIC patents in its implementation of virtual private networking - the ability to create an encrypted tunnel to another network over the Internet and act as a local machine to that network - in the Windows operating system, and sought $242 million in damages.
While the jury hasn't awarded VirnetX the full amount it was asking for, it has prompted the court to order Microsoft to pay $105.6 million (£62.3 million) in damages to the company - a figure which the judge has the option of trebling due to the willful nature of Microsoft's infringement.
Microsoft will almost certainly be appealing the ruling, and has previously claimed that its VPN technology was developed completely independently of SAIC's implementation and as a result does not fall foul of the patents.
Do you think Microsoft should pay up, or could a guilty verdict be the start of a slippery slope for anyone who relies on VPN technology? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
20 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyGuess Microsoft should be thankful for such a lienant ruling.
people who have read my other patent responses know what i think
Lol, agree Javaman.
The Patent law in the USA and UK, is one of the most stupid things on earth.
I even say more, its going to reach a point when we can't even Fart without being Sued.
Its time to Microsoft suing many companies using their technology and intellectual property.
Ummm ... what?
If you develop some technology completely independently and on your own, and someone had developed and patented the same tech before you, you still infringe on that patent. That's the nature of a patent.
virtnetx, didnt create the patent, if i understand the article correctly, the transfer of patents should not be allowed, and they should last no longer than 5 yrs
US PATENT 345.6789.012 states the following: Provide a mechanisim for rendering textual information to a display apparatus that can then be transmitted to other individuals via an electronic data transfer to their respective display apparatuses. Input of said textual information is initiated via physical depression of plastic pieces that are marked with symbols resembling the textual information displayed on previously mentioned display apparatuses.
(not useing firefox so I take zero responsibility for typos lol)
If you do not have the funds to take them to court (like most ppl) then MS are laughing all the way to the bank, its only a few companies with enough $ who finally get back what MS blatently stole
I agree, the technical capacity of the patent office is not up to the task. It does need revising because of the speed and volume of patent filings. Plus, did Microsoft develop their version parallel to SAIC? Additionally, the patent office needs to require specific design intents on how the design is to be used. Anyone can take a known widget, add to it for a different use, and patent that use. What has happened is filers have been allowed to provide such a broad and intentionally vague description of said use so when anyone, like MS, comes up with something similar, BAM a law suit is filed in a part of the country that is overly favorable to small companies over big ones, regardless of the merits.
I think the patent office could require more specificity WITHOUT congressional involvement which would be the best for all. Right now congress can't find their way out of an open box with a map and flashlight and I for one don't want them to get involved.
Patents aren't perfect but they can't go away either. Anarchy stops research.
total agree.
What do you think Schmidt, Brin and Page did first? They patented the hell out of their every idea, if not for patent protection Microsoft would just take everything they invented. The same goes to Gates - if there were no patents IBM would take everything and you would be using IBM Windows.
So please, if you have no idea about the topic, stop wasting bandwith and database space. "Blessed is the man who, having nothing to stay, abstains from giving us worthy evidence of the fact".
But but that applies to ~ 95% of these socially inept k/board warriors :|
You sir have totally missed the point of what a lot of people are saying. Yes the system is necessary to product such inovations by smaller companies but in its current form it open to abuse. Companies are using it to come up with an idea they have no plans of producing or the technology is not avaible to produce and waiting for these evil big companies to do the donkey work so they can sue them. The system has gone so far that apple successfully sue a school over logo infringement. Not only is the apple regarded as a symbol of learning in its own right, the school logo didn't look similar to apples logo.
What if physics engines where patented by one company and another company want to have objects move in their game. The second company then develops their own algorithms even call it something different. Would you be happy to let the first company be able to destroy the second simply because some bent system has strangle hold over the market? In its current form the patent system prevents competition and allows a company (big or small) to make easy money if someone else tries to do the leg work.
I agree that companies need their ideas protected and microsoft are guilty especially in the example you gave, but comming on and telling people to stfu just because they don't agree with you and your clear love of an easily bent system. If anything your guilty of doing the same thing your accusing them of only from the opposite view. Now drop the attitude and change your tone. You point is very valid but how you are putting it across is nothing more than flamming.
patents are not a right to build something, they are merely to protect the inventer from would be builders. in the spirit of patents, the inventer is supposed to build the patented item and make its use public, currently all people seem to be doing is patenting an idea, and not actually bringing it to the public domain, but waiting for someone else to, and then sue the pants off them.
*this is what i disagree with, 20 years is to long, and i think people should be forced to bring their idea to market within 5 yrs, and then if they don't , they loose all rights to said patent, and it becomes a free for all item.