Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

M$ loses appeal to limit damage awards

Filed under
Microsoft

Microsoft lost a U.S. appeals-court bid to limit the damages software makers can be ordered to pay in some patent-infringement cases, on its way to a new trial in a dispute over a method of surfing the Internet.

A jury had told Microsoft to pay Chicago-based Eolas Technologies $521 million for infringement. Yesterday an appeals court let stand its earlier decision that upheld the infringement finding and ruled that Microsoft can be forced to pay damages based on overseas sales of software. Microsoft still gets a new trial to argue its claim that the patent is invalid.

The case involves an award in 2003 to closely held Eolas by a jury that decided Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser infringed an Eolas patent on technology for reading information stored on the Internet. Intel and Time Warner's America Online supported Microsoft's argument that damages in such patent-infringement cases shouldn't include global sales when disks containing software code have been sent overseas.

Microsoft said in court papers that more than 64 percent of the $521 million award was based on computers "made, sold and used entirely in foreign countries."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled March 2 that Microsoft's software on computers sold overseas was covered by a U.S. patent because it had been copied from a master program developed in the U.S.

The ruling also upheld the jury's finding that Microsoft infringed the Eolas patent, though the court granted Microsoft a new trial on the sole issue of whether the Eolas patent was valid. That means Microsoft must win a decision invalidating the patent to avoid paying the $521 million award.

Today, the appeals court made no comment in refusing to reconsider its decision.

Source.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more