On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:24:46 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
<mikehall@mvps.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Microsoft always manages to get itself into high profile incidents, aided
>and abetted by those who do not particularly like Microsoft. So we get to
>hear about more or less everything they do, be it good or bad. Were we to
>hear about all breaches by all companies, loyal followers like you would be
>permanently disappointed by just about everything..[/color]

Does MS get more coverage on these issues? Probably yes, but this is
one of the biggest patent awards ever, those always get coverage.

MS is clearly at fault here. This was not a casual accident:

"In the Uniloc case, the jurors found that Microsoft’s infringement
was willful, or intentional."

"Uniloc claimed Richardson showed his program to Microsoft in 1993
under a pledge that Microsoft wouldn’t try to break down the code to
duplicate it. Uniloc claimed that Microsoft did that and, in 1997 or
1998, began pilot programs with similar software."

Let's note that Windows 3.1 was released about that time. MS was a
child. They didn't even have simple unique program keys back then in
Windows. This was NOT on MS's radar at all.

Also, MS CLEARLY knew of the existence on this patent.

"A Microsoft lawyer told jurors that the company’s engineers evaluated
Richardson’s software before deciding it was of no use to them."

So, they admit clearly that they knew of the work. As is typical for
MS, they simply ran roughshod over the other company and stole the
technology, because they thought it would cost them too much to do the
right thing and license the software.

It would be nice if the Judge takes advantage of the law regarding
willful violations and triples the damages - although even $1b is not
that large a deterrent for MS.

Read the patent here if you like: [url]http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=16058[/url]