|
On Premature Predictions Based on Claim Construction Orders, by pj |
|
Monday, June 06 2011 @ 06:09 PM EDT
|
Mark is traveling, so he asked me to come back to Groklaw and play for a couple of days. So let's talk about Motorola and Android and Microsoft and claim construction orders and Florian Mueller, shall we? Because the oddest thing just happened. Redmond Magazine reveals that Microsoft sent it the news about a claims construction order from the ITC regarding a Microsoft complaint against Motorola, with some talking points, I gather, on what it thinks it means. And at more or less the same time, but slightly before, Mueller published an article on his blog with the same information about the same claims construction order and giving it the same meaning as Microsoft sent to Redmond Magazine. We know the timing because Redmond Magazine links to Mueller. But I can't make the Redmond-Microsoft/Mueller math -- which is highlighted in both articles as being significant -- line up with the order itself. And while both articles opine that the order means that Microsoft's patent claims against Motorola are going swimmingly, and hence Android is in trouble, the picture is a lot more complex, according to my research. It turns out there are several lawsuits between the parties, and in the patent litigation in district court, the most recent event is that Motorola motions to dismiss were granted in part and Microsoft motions to dismiss were denied. I'll show you my research on all this.
First though, for context, let's take a look at the latest news about Android taking over the world of smartphones.
I guess you saw that Android is in the lead and gaining market share, and Microsoft's phone not only isn't growing market share, it's losing it. AT&T's Ralph De La Vega says Microsoft phones aren't doing as well as AT&T or Microsoft "would have liked". Adobe's CEO just told the world Android, in his opinion, will eventually conquer tablets too, surpassing even the iPad. So that world domination thing Linus used to joke about turns out to be happening in our lifetime. When there is no monopoly plunking its rear end down on the competition's air supply, people choose Linux and Apple quite happily.
So what's a monopolist to do when the world turns upside down and there's no way to sit on everybody any more because it's all about a new market, like smartphones? Maybe put out some hefty spin about a minor patent claims construction ruling? It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. A claims construction order is not a basis for a prediction of doom for anybody. It only matters if in the end one of the plaintiff's claims turns on it. And it's way too early to predict anything about that in the Microsoft/Motorola litigation. Unless one is a propagandist.
Here's the claims construction order by the ITC administrative law judge. It's related to a case Microsoft filed against Motorola in district court at the same time as it filed its complaint with the ITC, and then the case was stayed, pending the ITC investigation. Motorola didn't even file its answer prior to the stay, so this is just starting. Here's the order [PDF] staying that case.
Here's where Redmond Magazine tells us where it got its information from, in its article titled
Microsoft Scoring Points in Motorola Lawsuit: Microsoft let it be known today that it is gaining ground in its lawsuit against Motorola over alleged patent infringements associated with the Android mobile operating system.
Microsoft's attorneys claim that Motorola has infringed intellectual property in nine patents granted to Microsoft. Motorola, which also is a partner with Microsoft on Windows Mobile, got slapped with a lawsuit regarding the alleged Android patent infringements in October, and Motorola has promised to fight back. The lawsuit was filed in both the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, as well as at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
The case is proceeding in both venues. However, in mid-May, Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex, acting on behalf of the ITC filing following a so-called Markman hearing, ruled on the meaning of terms used in the nine patents. The judge ruled in favor of Microsoft's interpretation of those terms 17 times vs. five times in favor of Motorola's interpretation, according to the publicly released claim construction order (PDF).
It was actually in April, as you can see if you read the PDF. The date, April 22, 2011, is right under the header of the document. It just wasn't made public until May. And it's not accurate that it's proceeding in both venues. It's stayed pending the ITC finishing its side of things. But it's also not the only litigation going on between the parties involving patents, so it's simplistic to write that Microsoft's patent claims against Motorola are moving along nicely for Microsoft based solely on the ITC claims construction order in just one case, and a case where Motorola hasn't even filed an answer yet in the stayed parallel district court case. There are 3 patent infringement claims Motorola brought against Microsoft in a Wisconsin case and some contract claims involving RAND terms that Microsoft brought against Motorola, and the cases are now consolidated. Microsoft sought a dismissal of the patent claims against it, but the motion was denied. It's complicated, but
here's a May 31, 2011 order [PDF] in Case 343, now 1843, that explains it all. The cases were consolidated as Case C10-1843 in Wisconsin. Microsoft had sought to have it dismissed, but that was denied. In Washington State, there was
another patent infringement case filed by Motorola claiming [PDF] that 5 of its patents are being infringed by Microsoft, and Microsoft counterclaimed with 5 patents of its own, Case #C11-00595. If you read Microsoft's Answer with Counterclaims [PDF], Microsoft says that there was an earlier case Motorola brought citing patent infringement, Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00700, which was stayed pending an ITC investigation of Motorola's complaint, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-752. Here's Motorola's response [PDF] to Microsoft's counterclaims. Here's the docket entry on the May 11th order to reassign the case: The Court REASSIGNS this matter to the Honorable James L Robart for all further proceedings. All future pleadings shall bear the new case number C11-0595-JLR. (TF) Judge Robart is the judge in the RAND cases, and
here's
his order [PDF] consolidating them and denying Microsoft's motion to dismiss and granting in part Motorola's motions to dismiss. So it's almost all getting put together, patents and RAND contract claims, because it's all one big picture. I know. It's too complicated to even know if we're getting it all straight in such a cursory review of cases we haven't been closely following, which is why I'm giving you the PDFs, but that's really my point. This dispute between Microsoft and Motorola is very, very complicated, and the ITC claims construction order is a tiny part of just one case in what is a much bigger picture involving multiple cases and many claims by both sides.
It's very early in the process, and not even accurate, to say that Microsoft's patent *case* against Motorola is going well. It's certainly ridiculous to claim that Android is doomed, based on it. There's lots more to come and no way to know if it will even matter to the ultimate outcome. But let's get back to the ITC order. The source of the math about 17 to 5 in the claims construction order is apparently Microsoft, according to Redmond Magazine. It told at least that one journalist that the judge in the ITC case ruling on the meaning of the terms used in Microsoft's nine patents ruled in favor of Microsoft 17 times and only 5 times for Motorola.
Redmond Magazine also tells us that Mueller is telling the same story, with the same math: The order goes through each patent systematically in a way that's tedious to relate. However, blogger Florian Mueller, who describes himself as an "intellectual property activist," provides a blow-by-blow scorecard here. In fact, Florian calls his article, Android dispute: Microsoft thumps Motorola 17-5 in ITC patent claim construction:Motorola Mobility suffered a drubbing in its defense against Microsoft's Android-related patent infringement claims. According to an 88-page claim construction order of April 22 that was recently published, an ITC judge -- Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex -- rejected Motorola's proposals to narrow the scope of Microsoft's asserted patents in 17 out of 22 instances. The judge furthermore accepted 12 definitions on which the parties had agreed. 17 to 5. That's their alleged math.
And here's what he concludes from the order -- yes, once again, it's doom for Android in the Florian Mueller crystal ball: In patent infringement disputes, claim construction is a milestone of major importance. It precedes the determination of whether any valid patent claims are infringed. Any of the wordings in the patent claims that have a less than clear-cut meaning can either be construed more broadly, which makes it more likely that a patent is found to read on the accused products, or more narrowly, which could enable a defendant to escape infringement.
Eight months into the process (which is roughly half the time required by the ITC to take a final decision on a possible import ban), things don’t look too good for Motorola — nor for the Android ecosystem at large, as other Android device makers would face the same or greater challenges if they had to defend themselves against Microsoft.
Microsoft’s asserted patents and the related infringement allegations appear rather strong – in fact, much more solid than the claims made by Apple and Nokia in their ITC battles against each other.
He doesn't say he got this news from Microsoft. Redmond Magazine told us, but maybe… well. You can think what you think, and I'll do the same. But Groklaw didn't receive any such news from Microsoft. Did other journalists? Mueller even seems to suggest a solution for Android vendors:
While we are still a few quarters away from formal decisions, I think Motorola increasingly comes under pressure to settle. Furthermore, these developments probably strengthen those who champion (inside Motorola Mobility) the idea of replacing Android with a new internally-developed operating system. There’s no way to be safe from patent assertions with any smartphone operating system, but Android with its 44 related lawsuits and Google’s purely opportunistic approach is currently a surefire way to get into IP trouble… Smear, smear, smear. Is this his preference, or is it Microsoft that would prefer that people settle? Here's maybe one reason why Microsoft, at least, might want everyone to settle and just pay them.
Remember what Barnes & Noble told the court about Microsoft's litigation against its Nook, which is also an Android device -- and a fabulous device, by the way:
Microsoft is misusing these patents as part of a scheme to try to eliminate or marginalize the competition to its own Windows Phone 7 mobile device operating system posed by the open source Android operating system and other open source operating systems.
This is a serious allegation, one I would imagine Microsoft would prefer not to deal with in open court.
How does that all fit in? It fits in because when you misuse patents, it can turn around and bite you on your derriere, as they say, and if it does, it won't matter what any claims construction order said.
Since Redmond was honest enough to tell us that it was Microsoft giving its views, let's see what spin they are giving it. My stars -- it's exactly the same as Florian's: According to a Microsoft spokesperson, the next step in this case will be a full ITC trial in about six months' time. The spokesperson said that the ITC organization is part of this case because Motorola imports technologies created abroad into the United States, and the ITC has the authority to file an injunction to block those imports. The Washington state district court proceeding is a separate and concurrent matter, handling such aspects as rewards for damages.
The Microsoft spokesperson had no information to share about the progress of the district court proceedings. Still, the administrative law judge's confirmatory interpretations of Microsoft's patents appear to bode ill for hardware device makers that use the Android mobile OS. Another device maker and Microsoft partner, HTC, settled with Microsoft rather than go to court, unlike Motorola.
No information to share about the progress of the district court proceedings? Well, that's what Groklaw is for, to fill in those blanks. And as you can see, even Redmond Magazine doesn't believe this is about what they like to call 'intellectual property', rather that Microsoft is using patents as a means to an end. Redmond Magazine expressed this thought on why Microsoft is suing everyone:
Android Juggernaut
Android-based devices have been far outselling nascent Windows Phone 7 devices. In addition, Android and Apple iOS have maintained strong developer interest….Possibly, Microsoft's approach of suing its hardware partners is designed to slow Android's forward momentum thus far.
You think? The purpose of the FUD would, then, be in support of that same ignoble cause, would it not? So when you read about Android's doom, I'd suggest you file it under the same category as the old predictions of Apple's doom years ago.
How does a judge determine how to construe the meaning of a claim? As it happens, the order tells us, beginning on page 2 and going on for pages and pages, but what it says in plain English is that to determine if a patent has been infringed, you first have to determine what the scope of the patent claim is, what it covers. Then you look at the facts of what happened and see if in fact the claims read on the accused devices. And the way they do that is by steps that the order says go like this:
1. Look at the intrinsic evidence -- the language of the claims in the patent, the specification, and the prosecution history. "The words of the claims 'define the scope of the patented invention'", the judge wrote. Prosecution history here means as the patent application wound its way through the PTO process, there are filings and letters and such that leave a paper trail that can illuminate the inventor's meanings. This matters because sometimes patent owners try to broaden the scope of a patent to fit the nature of an alleged infringement, so the idea is to figure out what the inventor intended the scope to be when he filed his patent application, not what he claims it means a decade later, when he sees someone doing something sorta, kinda like it but not really. If the inventor, then, disclaimed by a statement to the PTO, he can't later broaden his claim and say it meant to cover what he earlier disclaimed.
The law assumes that a term on page 1 means the same as on page 4. So, your first step is to try to figure out what the patent owner meant for his claims to cover when he applied for the patent in the first place. Why, then, would it be a surprise if the patent owner would have more of his suggested claims constructions accepted by a court? Duh. I mean, the whole point is to find out what Microsoft meant by this patent, so of course it would tend to tilt Microsoft's way, one would think.
2. Investigate extrinsic evidence as to what a claim term's specialized meaning is in the particular field of art, if the claim is based on that.
3. Figure out if the patentee clearly meant something that deviates from the conventional meaning of a claim term. He can do that by making his meaning clear in the specification or during the patent's prosecution history. But it must be obvious enough to put a person skilled in the art on notice that he intended to redefine the term.
4. If you can't figure out by looking at the intrinsic evidence what the meaning of a claim is, then you look to extrinsic evidence, like "learned treatises", expert testimony, and inventor testimony. The order says that the Federal Circuit "has generally viewed extrinsic evidence as less reliable than the patent itself and its prosecution history in determining how to define claims" and that any expert testimony that is "clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the patent specification, and the prosecution history should be discounted." I expect those of you who followed the second SCO v. Novell trial can see why that would be so, after listening to the utter claptrap SCO's experts testified to.
5. Finally, if you still, after all the above, can't figure out what a claim terms means, "then the patent claims should be construed so as to maintain their validity." That means that they try to find for the patent owner. As you have seen, the whole patent system is set up in favor of the patent owners. "However," the order concludes in this section, "if the only reasonable interpretation renders a claim invalid, then the claim should be found invalid.
Reading that list, are you surprised that Microsoft's suggested meanings would be accepted whenever possibly correct? The whole exercise is to find out what Microsoft means by its patents claims, or more precisely what it meant when the inventors filed them and assigned them to Microsoft. And that's another reason why it isn't necessarily predictive of the end result, except that the entire patent law tilts its way, in that it is Microsoft's patents being "defended" here. Now, you can read all 88 pages of the order, and I encourage you to do so, but if you want to read instead a summary,
you can read the ITCblog's analysis, and if you go down the list of the claim construction order, the two lawyers writing the analysis indicate to me that the ruling agreed with Microsoft's construction of terms 12 times, Motorola 6 times, and neither party 3 times. Mueller linked to this blog, by the way, so he seems to find it useful. Yet the math doesn't match. I went through the ITCblog post, and I copied out the claims in dispute and how they say each one was decided, then cross checked the order when it wasn't clear to me, and then made a note in purple text showing the math:
The ‘517 and ‘352 Patents….The parties disputed the meaning of three claim terms from the ‘517 and ‘352 patents: “short filename,” “long filename for the file,” and “location of the file.”…
In the Order, ALJ Essex adopted Microsoft’s alternative construction, finding that the specification and claim language supported such a construction….
The ALJ sided with Microsoft, finding that its construction was supported by the specification and the claims…. ALJ Essex agreed with Microsoft as to this term, relying on the specification and finding that Motorola’s proposed construction would exclude the preferred embodiment.
(3 claim terms in dispute - Microsoft 3, Motorola 0)
The ‘054 Patent Four claim terms from the ‘054 patent were disputed by the parties: “while the client is on-line with the server,” “placing the client in an off-line condition with respect to the server,” “the synchronization being performed at least in part by transmitting to the server the copy or the resource stored at the client, and the resource state information,” and “the resource.”….
…ALJ Essex found that the specification provided a clear definition of “on-line,” and agreed with Motorola’s construction….
The ALJ found an express definition of “off-line” in the specification and accordingly construed the phrase as “placing the client in a state in which it is not immediately capable of actively communicating with a server.” [PJ: Motorola's suggestion]…
The ALJ agreed with Microsoft, giving the phrase its plain and ordinary meaning….ALJ Essex agreed with Microsoft and determined that the ‘054 patentees did not use the term in a manner consistent with only a single meaning.
(4 claim terms in dispute - Microsoft 2, Motorola 2)
The ‘746 Patent - The parties disagreed as to three terms from the ‘746 patent: “erase operation,” “physical sector,” and “block.”…ALJ Essex found the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning [MS's]…. The ALJ found that the claim language supported Microsoft’s alternative definition, “a portion of a block.”… ALJ Essex found neither proposed definition appropriate. Based on the claims and the specification, the ALJ interpreted the term as “contiguous units of memory organized into a larger collective unit.”
(3 terms in dispute: Microsoft 2, Motorola 0, neither 1)
The ‘762 Patent -
Three terms of the ‘762 patent were disputed by the parties: “without knowledge of the telephony radio or cellular network,” “proxy layer”/ “proxy,” and “driver layer”/ “radio driver.”
…The ALJ agreed with Microsoft, giving the phrase its plain and ordinary meaning…. The ALJ adopted Microsoft’s proposed constructions…. The ALJ adopted Microsoft’s proposed constructions…. ALJ Essex sided with Microsoft, giving the terms their plain and ordinary meaning, “software that communicates with hardware,” and “software that communicates with a radio."
(3 terms in dispute - Microsoft 3, Motorola 0)
The ‘376 Patent -
Three claim terms were disputed by the parties with respect to the ‘376 patent: “data store,” “notification broker,” and “determine.”…
The ALJ agreed with Microsoft’s construction and determined that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term was “something that stores data.”… With regard to this term, ALJ Essex adopted Motorola’s definition, finding it was supported by the specification…. The ALJ found that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.[PJ: Microsoft's suggestion.]
(3 terms in dispute: Microsoft 2, Motorola 1)
The ‘910 Patent -
The claims of the ‘910 patent contained two disputed terms: “contact card” and “replacing the existing contact card in the contact database with the updated contact card”/ “an existing contact card is replaced with the updated contact card.”…Relying on the disclosure of the specification and the claims, the ALJ adopted Motorola’s definition…. The ALJ found neither proposed construction satisfactory and determined that the plain language of the phrases were sufficiently clear.
(2 terms in dispute: Microsoft 0 , Motorola 1, Neither 1.) Let's take a detour here for a minute and read this in the order itself, beginning on page 70, the section on the two phrases “replacing the existing contact card in the contact database with the updated contact card”/ “an existing contact card is replaced with the updated contact card.” I've marked in red the parts that matter most, in my view:These two phrases are found in Claims 1 and 10 of the '910 Patent, respectively. The dispute between the parties centers on the meaning of the words "replacing" and "replaced." Microsoft proposes that these phrases need no construction, or alternatively that they be interpreted as "saving updated information in the contact database for an existing contact card" and "changing information in a contact card," respectively. (COB at 94-95.) Motorola proposes that these phrased both be construed to mean "deleting the existing contact card in the contact database and substituting the updated contact card." (ROB at 84-85.)The constructions offered by the parties are not fully satisfactory. Microsoft's constructions are erroneous because they ignore the words "replacing the existing contact card" and "an existing contact card is replaced." Microsoft's proposals merely require "updated information" or "changing information" and do not necessarily require replacing a contact card. Because Microsoft's constructions would effectively eliminate the phrases "replacing the existing contact card" and "an existing contact card is replaced" from the claims, Microsoft's proposals must be rejected. See Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950-51 (Fed.Cir.2006) (rejecting a claim construction that "would read the [disputed] limitation out of the claim altogether").
Motorola's construction is also erroneous. Motorola's construction assumes that the "replacing the existing contact card" necessarily means that the existing contact card is deleted. While it may be true that in some circumstances an existing contact card is deleted when a contact card is replaced, the '910 Patent discloses at least one embodiment that distinguishes between deleting and replacing a contact card: "If a contact card is an updated contact card, the previous contact card is deleted and replaced by the updated contact card." ('910 Patent at 8:59-61 (emphasis added).) While the distinction between deleting and replacing may be thin, the inventors have nevertheless drawn it, and the claims should be interpreted in a manner that gives full effect to the inventors' disclosure.
The ALJ finds the plain language of the disputed phrases is sufficiently clear to require no further construction beyond the rejection of the parties' arguments above. Accordingly, ordinary meaning will be given to the phrases "replacing the existing contact card in the contact database with the updated contact card" and "an existing contact card is replaced with the updated contact card."
Does that sound like a victory for Microsoft to you? The administration law judge (ALJ) says, as I read it, that he rejected Microsoft's constructions, plural. One of them was that the ordinary meaning be given, but the judge said that "no further construction" was needed he added: "beyond the rejection of the parties' arguments above" and that phrase is meaningful. Yet Florian counts this as a victory for Microsoft:
"replacing the existing contact card [...]" and "an existing [...] is replaced"
Microsoft supported the plain meaning or other wordings ("saving updated information in the contact database for an existing contact card", "changing information in a contact card"). Motorola wanted to narrow this down to a particular implementation strategy in which the existing contact card would be deleted and then substituted. The judge supported the plain meaning. Knowing that there are different ways for how to replace data in a database, I, too, believe Motorola's proposal was too limiting.
While these are two terms, they are related and were decided by the judge as a single issue, which is why I will count this as only one goal in Microsoft's favor.
That's a bit of a stretch, I think. Rather, I'd suggest it belongs in the "Neither" category. I mean, read it for yourself. Let's go back to ITCblog's list of the decision, patent by patent:
The ‘133 Patent -
Four claim terms were disputed as to the ‘133 patent: “a menu selection relating to a class of objects to which the selected computer resource belongs”/ “a menu selection related to the class of objects to which the selected object belongs,” “a menu selection associated with a container in which the selected computer resource belongs”/ “a menu selection that is associated with the container in which the selected object belongs,” “label,” and “file system object menu selection corresponding to a file system object.”…
The ALJ disagreed with both parties proposed constructions and construed the phrases as “a choice or option in a menu based upon or determined by the class of objects to which the selected computer resource belongs.”…
ALJ Essex disagreed with both parties and construed the disputed phrases as “a choice or option in a menu based upon or determined by the environment or context in which the selected computer resource resides.”… Based on the prosecution history, the ALJ agreed with Motorola and adopted its construction…. In the Order, ALJ Essex determined that the specification supported Motorola’s definition, and he adopted it.
(4 disputed terms: Microsoft 0, Motorola 2, Neither 2)
Yet, Florian again gives a victory to Microsoft on terms where the judge disagreed with both parties: '133 patent (context menu patent)
"a menu selection relating to a class of objects [...]"
and "a menu selection, related to […]"
Microsoft supported the plain meaning ("a menu selection relating to a class of objects to which the selected computer resource belongs"; "a menu selection, related to the class of objects or information related to a contact") or an alternative wording in which "menu selection" would be replaced with "a choice or option in a menu" and "class of objects [...]" with "a category of objects that includes selected computer resource". Motorola proposed "a menu selection connected to a selected object's class", which the judge found too limiting. The judge's own construction used Microsoft's proposed construction of menu selection ("a choice or option in a menu"), followed by "based upon or determined by the class of objects to which the selected computer resource belongs". In terms of the technical meaning, this is much closer to Microsoft's proposal than to Motorola's suggestion that the relevant menu selection should be connected to a particular class.
While these are two terms, they are related and were decided by the judge as a single issue, which is why I will count this as only one goal in Microsoft's favor….
"a menu selection associated with a container [...]"
and "a menu selection that is associated [...]"
Here we have a similar situation as with the previous two terms: the judge adopted Microsoft's proposal to define "menu selection as "a choice or option in a menu" and added a qualifier starting with "based upon or determined by", but rejected Motorola's more limiting definition ("a menu selection provided by the container in which the selected object is located"). Instead, Microsoft's proposal to use the rather broad term "environment [that includes one or more items]" was adopted by the judge -- he even added "or context" to it. So in terms of breadth, the judge essentially came down on Microsoft's side.
While these are two terms, they are related and were decided by the judge as a single issue, which is why I will count this as only one goal in Microsoft's favor….
FINAL SCORE:
Microsoft 17, Motorola 5
Weird, isn't it? I mean, how reliable is that math? I don't know if the math comes from Microsoft originally or Mueller, and math wasn't my best subject which is why I am asking you guys to check it, it just doesn't add up to me. The only way I can get 17 for Microsoft seems to be to ignore it when the judge said he rejected both parties' constructions and give those times to Microsoft. If you don't do that, and I don't, then I get Microsoft 12, Motorola 6, and Neither Party 4.
Yet we see articles like this one in Seattle PI with the 17 to 5 figure presented as established:
Mueller took each of Microsoft’s 22 asserted patents in the ITC case and made up a scorecard, based on the judge’s recent findings. Today’s final score: Microsoft 17, Motorola 5. As I say, I don't think the fuss made over all this matters in the end much, but accuracy matters.
The last time there were some scary articles about a claim construction order, with some concluding that Oracle's scoring points against Google in the number of claim construction terms the judge agreed with was a leg up for Oracle, I suggested that it was too early to tell what it meant and that journalists could save themselves embarrassment by just reading the filings themselves and not relying on Mueller or on any lobbyist for what they allegedly mean. Sure enough, afterward Oracle's claims were so severely cut back by the judge, from 132 to only 3 with a hope of possible adjustment in the future, it was clear that any claimed "leg up" from the claim construction order was illusory, because it will only matter if on the last lap one of the claims that survived is about a patent ruled valid and which turns on a particular construction that Oracle prevailed on. See what I mean? And at this point, no one knows what will happen in that litigation's last lap or in this one. So I reiterate my advice. Wait and see.
|
|
Authored by: entre on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
If needed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
For everything not related to the story [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Free Press complains to the FCC about Verizon tethering - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Is American law enforcement colluding with Cisco? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- Ongoing M$ Propaganda - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- How do I pixel-pick in Gimp? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 12:07 AM EDT
- Collective nouns - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- Webian - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 10:50 AM EDT
- Microsoft Buying Nokia's Phone Business For $19 Billion -- TWEET - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Troll in disguise? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- The iSys lawsuit - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- Happy World IPv6 Day! - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Major damages sought in Oracle-Google patent dispute - Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- Cell phone use is up, brain cancer rates down - Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 06:53 PM EDT
- RSA finally comes clean: SecurID is compromised - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Is Windows 8 a massive clone of OSX ? - Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 07:29 PM EDT
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
Discussion about the news picks on the Groklaw home page go here.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
Ok... I only got a part of the way through and plan to finish reading when I
get home. However, here's my thoughts.
My understanding of the claims
constructions - and I'm sure P.J. will wack me with a rubber mallet for being so
simple :) - is that basically it's to take specific words/structures in the
patent claims, place a solid definition on them so the plaintiff/defendant can
work in a nice black-n-white area rather then a nasty grey obfuscated area. The
simpler the understanding of the claims, the easier it'll likely be for the Jury
to understand what's being presented.
Ok P.J., you can get out your
mallet and give me a wack or three!
So... if'n my simple version is
reasonably accurate and IANAL so it could be way out to lunch. If it's
accurate, then the most immediate thought on my mind is:
Wow.... MS has got
to be getting pretty desperate if they're trying to pitch a "definition session"
as some kind of win when the particular definitions applied probably only mean
the defendant has to resort to that other pile of prior art.
We'll see if I
hold the same thought when I'm done reading :)
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
and two entities came before me with dueling patents covering the same
technology, I think I'd rule both patents invalid by reason of obviousness.
Unfortunately this is a very imperfect world and I have little to no sayso in
the matter, so I guess the best we can do is pray that the judge(s) will play
fair and hope for the best.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tinstaafl on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
Apropos of nothing, but over the years of reading Groklaw, if ever I were a
party to a court case, I'd be so much happier if PJ was on *my* lawyer's team
and not theirs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bystander on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
Florian writes:
In patent infringement disputes, claim
construction is a milestone of major
importance. It precedes the determination
of whether any valid patent claims
are infringed. Any of the wordings in the
patent claims that have a less than
clear-cut meaning can either be construed
more broadly, which makes it
more likely that a patent is found to read on the
accused products, or more
narrowly, which could enable a defendant to escape
infringement.
There may be other consequences of pushing for
an expansive
interpretation of patent claims. Having staked out a formal
position on the
meaning of terms in a claim, Microsoft will now have to defend
its
interpretation to potential challenges. Those challenges could take the
form
of charges that the claims are invalid for not meeting requirements in law
for
novelty and non-obviousness.
35
U.S.C. 102
specifies conditions under which a patent may be denied for
lack of novelty.
This is the section where prior art can be used to establish
grounds for
denying a patent claim because the claimed invention is not new.
The danger in
seeking very broad interpretation of patent claims is that it
possibly widens
the range of previous disclosures or publications that might
reveal instances
where the claims completely cover something that was done
before. The presence
of a previously existing implementation of an agreed on
interpretation of a
claim would be definitive proof that the claim itself did not
describe a new
invention.
35
U.S.C. 103 specifies conditions under which a patent may be denied for
being obvious to "a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains". Adopting a broad interpretation of patent claims
also runs the risk of making the resulting claims susceptible to charges of
simply presenting results that were obvious to people skilled in the relevant
subject matter.
Finally, adopting an expansive interpretation of patent
claims could even
expose the claims to increased scrutiny under the principle,
bolstered by the
recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski, that abstract ideas
may not qualify
for patent protection.
Florian also likes to emphasize
how current proceedings may cause
Microsoft competitors to fear future
litigation. It should also be noted that
even if Microsoft's case against
Motorola is painful for Motorola, its ensuing
defense might provide future
litigants with a much better understanding of
Microsoft's case and a chance
that Microsoft's patent claims might be
significantly whittled down in the
process. An example of what might happen
can be seen in the case of NTP vs.
RIM, where NTP won a lot of money in a
settlement, and later cases that NTP
tried to bring against other parties for
similar claims of patent
infringement.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cbc on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
If Microsoft were winning, they would have thumped Motorola 22 out of 22. This
is claims construction, that is, what you claim now is what the patent claim
says. That Motorola won 5 is a deep embarrassment to Microsoft.
Spin only goes so far. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cassini2006 on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
I think this litigation creates additional incentives for for Microsoft to
purchase Nokia sooner rather than later. Nokia's stock price is through the
floor.
The last thing Microsoft would want is for Motorola, RIM, Samsung, or HTC
to purchase Nokia in a bid to increase market share. Microsoft would wind up
without a supply of defensive patents, and without a market to sell products
too.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
What? No Microsoft email detailing how this is completely true, and planned,
yet?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 06 2011 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
I saw somewhere, perhaps Eric Raymond's blog, someone claiming that close
analysis of Microsoft's results show that they make more money on patent tribute
from Android phone manufacturers than they do selling their own mobile phone
O/S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Source of info - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 01:09 AM EDT
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
As I've said several times, you can't go far wrong by taking the opposite
position to what Florian advocates. I went through his blog one time (no link,
you can find it) and could not find ONE article where his prediction was right,
among the ones which had run out.
Now it's always possible that all
of the ones that haven't run out will fall his way, improving his batting
average, but I doubt it.
At which point I need to digress, so pardon
me while I wander along some weird paths.
PJ and Mark tend to fight
fair. I don't. I've always believed that if you are fighting fair, you aren't
trying hard enough. I'm quite willing to get down and dirty. It probably helps
that I don't have any feelings to get hurt. You can insult me all day long, and
I don't care. Water off a ducks back.
I also don't expect my
opponents to fight fair. The first thing I look for when I get into a fight is
the fix. Because 99 times out of 100 there is one. It's just a case of spotting
it. And when Microsoft is involved, the fix is usually Waggener Edstrom
Worldwide. Whenever you see information getting to places that it shouldn't get
to, they are likely to be involved. Consider. We have some no name blogger in
Germany getting what amounts to inside information on a court case involving
Microsoft, along with an evaluation that FAVOURS Microsoft. I would bet that
Waggener Edstrom Worldwide was involved somehow.
For those who think
that I'm paranoid, go ask the old timers, who were around back in the days when
you accessed the internet using SLIP and Usenet was the killer application, if
they remember seeing messages in the Borland newsgroups that went like "Well I
like Borland compilers as much as the next guy, but there are some things that
you can only do with Microsoft compilers." They probably do. They damned things
were popping up all over the place. Other compiler manufacturers saw the same
basic messages, including Digital Research,
And a few years later in
the Netscape newsgroups you saw messages sayings, "Well I like Netscape as much
as the next guy, but there are some things that you can only do with Internet
Explorer." It was odd. I the Apple newsgroups you saw, "Well I like Macs as much
as the next guy, but there are some things that you can only do with Microsoft
Windows." And of course, "Well I like Word Perfect as much as the next guy, but
there are some things that you can only do with Microsoft Word."
FUD.
Pure unadulterated FUD. To quote
Comes
Document 3096:
11: Mopping Up
Mopping Up can be a lot of
fun. In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal is to put the final nail into
the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of the
earth. Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental
deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and OS/2."
Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups, whatever. Make the
complete failure of the competition's technology part of the mythology of the
computer industry. We want to place selection pressure on those companies and
individuals that show a genetic weakness for competitors' technologies, to make
the industry increasingly resistant to such unhealthy strains, over
time.
Effectively Microsoft is on the wrong end of the SLOG.
Rather than being the ones who are trying to make their competitor's technology
associated with mental deficiency, Microsoft's own failures have made
Microsoft's technologies become associated that way.
Microsoft is of
course trying to fight back.
The most disturbing thing from my point
of view, is that I'm seeing correspondences between what Microsoft was doing,
what Sony did in their legal fight against George Hotz, the actions revealed in
the HBGary Federal email breach, and a bunch of other supposedly disconnected
things.
These led me to seek out and talk to Barrett Brown. I ran
some of the things I'd noticed by Barrett. He had no idea at all of the things
that had been turned up in the Microsoft anti-trust case, or the Comes case, and
was fascinated in the database at Groklaw. I gave him the link so he could do
some digging. At some point I'm going to sit be asking people for an evaluation
of which Comes documents are the most important, and why, so that I can pass the
information on to Barrett to save him some time. The Comes stockpile is, well,
huge to the best word that comes to mind in describing it.
Barrett
isn't the only person who is working around the edges of society on projects
that may be related. @ioerror has been supporting #Anonymous on #OpEgypt,
#OpTunisia, #OpItaly, and I've heard rumors of an upcoming #OpFrance (which if
it does surface may end up being largely feminist driven, the sexual assault
charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the ex=head of the IMF appear of have
unleashed a long pent up rage in French women hood.
Viva la
femme française!
The connecting point to all of the above is
of course power. And that points to the possible future need for an #OpRIAA, an
#OpMPAA, an #OpUSA, an #OpRepublicanParty, an #OpDemocracticParty, and a bunch
of other operations. When I told #Anonymous this, they were somewhat taken
aback. I understand that they have been emphasizing recruiting a bit more
recently. I wonder why?
Serioualy though, I have a very strong
feeling that #Anonymous is working on the exact same problem that we are. They
are fighting an opponent that is a lot larger and more powerful than they are,
and has a lot more money and resources. What it doesn't have is a sense of
morals and ethics,
Remember I said that I didn't mind playing dirty?
I don't. But I don't play dirty until after I have rock solid proof that the
other side is doing is playing dirty. At which point the gloves come
off.
Think about it folks. We have a lot of allies. Many of them
aren't necessarily people that you'd currently want to invite home to meet Mom
and Dad. And you'd be wrong. Because I've talk to these people. The reason they
are involved, and doing what they are doing, is that they have a powerful
interest in morals and ethics. Oh, they are also into it for the lulz, but so
are we. Who among us didn't laugh out loud when one of us managed to use
California law to produce an Access to Information request that forced the
University of California to turn over the Settlement from the Novell v. The
Regents of U.C. litigation? That was a beauty (sorry, can't remember your name,
but you are a hero for getting the document
released).
--- Regards
Wayne Borean
http://madhatter.ca - Through the Looking Glass
http://wayneborean.ca - About Writing
http://weblit.ca - Web Lit Canada
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
...Android, in his opinion, will eventually conquer tablets too, surpassing
even the iPad.
Swedish survey shows that CIO's (at least in MS centric
companies) do not want Android and iPad/iPhone and other non-Windows Phones
because they "can't be managed like Windows".
Just wait and see, we will
suddenly see an explosion in sales of Windows based tablets... as soon as they
arrive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
Florian is a little slow so maybe we should spell it out for him. You just got
p0wned Dude.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
Does that sound like a victory for Microsoft to you?
The
administration law judge (ALJ) says, as I read it, that he
rejected Microsoft's
constructions, plural. One of them was that
the ordinary meaning be given, but
the judge said that "no
further construction" was needed he added: "beyond the
rejection
of the parties' arguments above" and that phrase is
meaningful.
Well, it seems that depends entirely on what it
means that a
"claim needs no construction". I don't know that myself, but if I
had to guess, I would have guessed it means that a jury does not
get any
explanation of the terms, which I understand was
Microsoft's primary
proposal.
It also depends on what "beyond the rejection of the parties'
arguments above" means. Does it mean that the jury will be told
that it does
not mean [whatever Microsoft proposed in the
alternative]?
If the jury gets
no instructions on what it means, it would
seem like a Microsoft victory to me,
in the sense that they got
exactly what they asked for. It doesn't matter if
the judge
agrees with your reasoning or not if he rules exactly the way you
asked, does it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iraskygazer on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
PJ,
I'm guessing, from the tone of this article, you believe that Microsoft is
peddling it's wares again. ;-)
It is a shame that MS is so transparent that you can pick out speculative FUD
just after publication.
Glad to see your sign-in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jacks4u on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
Do i read it that Microsoft's '910 patent covers a particular database schema
and methods of manipulating the data represented therein? Is that allowed? I
mean, seriously - Change the names and add or remove a few fields, and that
system could apply to almost anything, from point of sale and inventory
management to FaceBook games and internet TV.
I could see it falling under copyright, as one possible expression of database
manipulation of user supplied data, but PATENT? <rolleyes>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Am I missing something? Is there 22 "terms" or 23?
The ‘762 Patent
- Three terms of the ‘762 patent were disputed by the parties: “without
knowledge of the telephony radio or cellular network,” “proxy layer”/ “proxy,”
and “driver layer”/ “radio driver.”
…The ALJ agreed with Microsoft, giving the
phrase its plain and ordinary meaning….
The ALJ adopted Microsoft’s proposed
constructions….
The ALJ adopted Microsoft’s proposed constructions….
ALJ Essex
sided with Microsoft, giving the terms their plain and ordinary meaning,
“software that communicates with hardware,” and “software that communicates with
a radio."
(3 terms in dispute - Microsoft 3, Motorola
0)
That sure looks like 4 terms to me.
Given that,
seeing as these are MS' patents it would seem more correct to give neither side
rulings to Motorola. Sure the judge may not have taken Motorola's term, but more
importantly did not take Microsoft's to their detriment most likely. That to me
is a win for Motorola.
Using a hokey baseball analogy. A runner slides
in to home, and gets tagged by catcher. One team says he was touching the plate,
the other says he wasn't and the ump says he has to back to third. The ump took
neither side's opinion but the end result is a win for the runner. So I declare
it to be MS 12 Motorola 9. That's not much of a win for MS, given it's their
patents and they can only correctly define the terms in their patents 4 times
out of 7. That barely better than 50% correct. I'd hate to be 50% correct in
court, most of the time. Unless it's really 23 terms, then 13:6:3 or 13:9
(still 56% vs. 54%). But it still looks like Florian took one away from Motorola
and gave it to MS, no matter how you do the math. Reminds me of a puzzle my
recently deceased father gave us about a farmer and his 17 mules to his three
sons. In the end it meant giving back the neighbor's horse (#18) after doing the
math (1/2, 1/3, 1/9). A puzzle oddly appropriate in this discussion. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Footnote 10 (p.34): "The ALJ notes that the '054 Patent purports to define
the term 'Resource' by reference to a source identified only as 'RFC 2518'.
However, none of the parties argue that RFC 2518 contains a definition of
'resource' that should control in this Investigation."
RFC 2518 (WebDAV) really doesn't define "resource" anywhere, but it
references RFC 2396 (URI Generic Syntax), which does (end of p. 1):
" Resource
A resource can be anything that has identity. Familiar
examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
(e.g., 'today's weather report for Los Angeles'), and a
collection of other resources. Not all resources are network
'retrievable'; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
books in a library can also be considered resources.
The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of
entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to that
mapping at any particular instance in time. Thus, a resource
can remain constant even when its content—the entities to
which it currently corresponds—changes over time, provided
that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process."
I'm not sure if that's a useful definition in this dispute...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RFC 2518 - Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 07 2011 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- RFC 2518 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 08 2011 @ 12:02 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Wednesday, June 08 2011 @ 03:47 AM EDT |
Dispute Damages Would Exceed Android
Revenues --- Here's where you can get the computer RMS uses:
http://freedomincluded.com/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|