 |
| If only software product activiation was as easy as flicking a switch... |
The case first made headlines when a jury awarded damages of US$388 million against Microsoft for patent infringement, and then again when the presiding District Court judge overturned the verdict in a "Judgement as a Matter of Law" (JMOL).
Naturally, Uniloc appealed the judge's decision. Oral arguments in the case were heard in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last month. Readers with a burning interest in such proceedings can listen to a MP3 recording of the hearing, available from the CAFC website.
Something that is less well-known (perhaps unsurprisingly, since Uniloc is a US company, and its parent is based in Singapore) is that the founder of Uniloc is an Australian by the name of Ric Richardson, who invented the software licensing system and filed his first patent applications back in the early 1990's.
After early support from IBM began to wane, Richardson moved to the US to pursue licensing deals with various software vendors, before beginning to suspect that Microsoft's Windows XP product activation system infringed his patent.
Richardson has more recently retired from active involvement with Uniloc, and now operates as an independent inventor out of a mobile office set up in the back of a Ford Transit van in the Byron Bay area, which is better known for its bohemian residents, and for being the easternmost point of the Australian mainland, than for its tech-millionaires!
Last year, the Australian Story television program profiled Richardson, and the history of Uniloc and Microsoft, in an episode entitled The Big Deal. The program was made after the jury verdict, but before the final judgement, and regrettably closed with the caption:
Ric Richardson says he expects the judge's final determination on damages against Microsoft 'any day now'.
In doubt is whether or not the figure will include an extra amount for the 'wilfulness' of the infringement.It is possible to watch the episode, or read the transcript, on the program's website.
Richardson's decision to step away from active involvement with Uniloc was perhaps influenced by the fact that the company appears to have moved into a new phase of business since the Microsoft case which, while important and potentially lucrative in terms of extracting maximum value from its intellectual assets, is understandably of lesser interest to a curious and inventive mind.
The law.com website reports that, since last November, Uniloc has commenced litigation against no less than 73 companies, for infringement of the same patent asserted against Microsoft. The most recent defendants include Adobe, Symantec, CA, National Instruments, and Sonic Solutions.
Richardson has a blog, where you can read his take on the Microsoft case and the recent CAFC hearing, and much else besides.
We are always pleased to report Australian success stories, and hope that others will see them as an example of what can be achieved with good ideas, good sense, determination and a bit of luck!
We wish Richardson and Uniloc well, and will provide updates of any further developments in the ongoing litigation that happen across our desk.
Before You Go…
Thank you for reading this article to the end – I hope you enjoyed it, and found it useful. Almost every article I post here takes a few hours of my time to research and write, and I have never felt the need to ask for anything in return.
But now – for the first, and perhaps only, time – I am asking for a favour. If you are a patent attorney, examiner, or other professional who is experienced in reading and interpreting patent claims, I could really use your help with my PhD research. My project involves applying artificial intelligence to analyse patent claim scope systematically, with the goal of better understanding how different legal and regulatory choices influence the boundaries of patent protection. But I need data to train my models, and that is where you can potentially assist me. If every qualified person who reads this request could spare just a couple of hours over the next few weeks, I could gather all the data I need.
The task itself is straightforward and web-based – I am asking participants to compare pairs of patent claims and evaluate their relative scope, using an online application that I have designed and implemented over the past few months. No special knowledge is required beyond the ability to read and understand patent claims in technical fields with which you are familiar. You might even find it to be fun!
There is more information on the project website, at claimscopeproject.net. In particular, you can read:
- a detailed description of the study, its goals and benefits; and
- instructions for the use of the online claim comparison application.
Thank you for considering this request!
Mark Summerfield
2 comments:
"no less than 73 companies" ???!!! Maybe there is no reason for USPTO to grant patent for something which is widely use. I wish all these "other" companies well and hope that one day the "patent trolling" will not be allowed in USA.
Thanks, 'Anonymous' for your interest. However, you should know that the patent in question (US 5,490,216) was filed in 1993, and issued in 1996, when nobody was using the invention (a number of those 73 companies probably didn't even exist then).
Also, it is not really fair to use the term "troll" to describe a company that practices the invention itself, and has its own products and services out in the marketplace.
Post a Comment