« Bilski v. Kappos Oral Arguments: Supreme Skepticism Toward Method Patents | Main | Patent Litigation Weekly: Shutter Closing on Massive Photo-Sharing Patent Suit »

January 11, 2010



I'm sad that the reasons given were "America vs. Canada" and how they don't have much of a problem with how EDT is run or realize that the PTO is clueless/overworked enough to grant patents on perpetual motion machines by mistake these days. But I guess most people don't pay attention to that stuff.

That said, I do think that their verdict, even if they arrived at it in an odd way, because according to all accounts, Microsoft stabbed yet another "partner" in the back. I have little doubt that Microsoft decided that it would be cheaper to screw some small company over, rather than buying their technology. Every time I hear about how Microsoft "respects intellectual property rights" I think of cases like this one...


why should it surprise anyone when a company who's founder is a college drop out and a substandard programmer who started the company by dumpster diving for unix code and stole basic from the public?

Jackie Hutter

Thank you, Joe. This reporting is very illuminating, and those of us in the biz are lucky to have you doing this.


Reading through the opinion and other available documents, it doesn't seem like Microsoft spent the time or money to put together a good case. They tried trash talk, a slick lawyer and thought that was enough. Plus, they did blatantly steal i4i's developed software if not directly, they at least stole the ideas and solutions from them. I can hear the P-H-B now, "Boy what i4i showed us looks great! Can our software engineers make something that is exactly the same?"

Name is required

Welcome back, Joe. Powers' cockiness yet again shines through. What works in Wilmington doesn't play in Peoria (or Tyler). When will big companies learn to use local counsel effectively? See TiVo v. EchoStar. That being said, I don't think anyone could have saved Microsoft given those facts.

Paul Adams

Thanks, Joe. Very illuminating. I love to hear what jurors say in patent cases. It would be interesting to review the transcript. I wonder if that one juror who consulted the blogs really did so after the verdict, not before.

The comments to this entry are closed.