MSFT in the US Supreme Court MSFT vs. AT&T (05-1056) 2/21/07)

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Chad Harris, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. Chad Harris

    Chad Harris Guest

    The case is Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 05-1056 and oral argument was
    2/21/07 Wednesday. MSFT litigates constantly,but this is probably their
    first case that reached the US Supreme Court:

    www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/10/court_to_hear_f_2.html

    www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/20/yourmoney/msft.php


    February 21, 2007
    High Court Skeptical of Microsoft Patent Ruling
    By REUTERS
    Filed at 2:12 p.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed
    doubts about whether Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) should be liable for
    infringing AT&T Inc.patents in Windows software sold overseas, a case that
    could determine the reach of American patents in foreign markets.

    Hearing arguments in the case, the justices sharply questioned AT&T's
    assertion that software code could be deemed a ``component'' of a computer,
    which would make overseas sales of the software an infringement under U.S.
    patent law.

    Two justices expressed concern that a ruling against Microsoft could
    unintentionally subject other products sold overseas to U.S. patent law.

    Justice Stephen Breyer said he would be ``quite frightened of deciding for
    you and discovering that all over the world there are vast numbers of
    inventions that really can be thought of in the same way that you're
    thinking of this one.''

    The Microsoft-AT&T dispute is one of a series of important patent cases now
    before the court.

    At issue is a ruling last year upholding a lower court decision that
    Microsoft was liable for infringing an AT&T patent for converting speech
    into computer code in copies of the Windows computer operating system sold
    overseas.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the world's largest
    software maker was liable for the unauthorized distribution of codec
    technology, used to compress speech signals into data, in copies of Windows
    overseas.

    The U.S. Justice Department has sided with much of Microsoft's argument and
    said the appeals court ruling ''improperly extends United States patent law
    to foreign markets'' and puts U.S. software companies at a competitive
    disadvantage.

    ____________________________________

    Thursday, February 22, 2007
    Justices question AT&T arguments in dispute with Microsoft
    By ASSOCIATED PRESS


    WASHINGTON (AP) - A lawyer for AT&T Corp. argued before a skeptical Supreme
    Court on Wednesday that Microsoft Corp. is violating one of its patents when
    it sends its Windows software overseas to be copied and placed on personal
    computers.

    Microsoft acknowledged that it violated AT&T's patent on speech encoding
    technology when it sold Windows in the United States, but disputes that it
    should be held responsible for infringement when the software is copied by
    foreign manufacturers.

    Justice Stephen Breyer expressed some sympathy for Microsoft's argument,
    suggesting AT&T should pursue its infringement complaint in overseas markets
    where the copies are made.

    ''The whole question here is whether (the company) has to get a patent''
    abroad, Breyer said.

    At issue in the dispute is a section of patent law that bars companies from
    shipping components of a patented invention overseas for assembly. The
    intent of the provision, which became law in 1984, was to prevent companies
    from circumventing patents by sending parts offshore to assemble them in a
    way that would infringe the patent in the United States.

    Two lower federal courts ruled in favor of AT&T. The Supreme Court is
    expected to decide the case by July.

    AT&T's lawyer, Seth P. Waxman, argued that the patent law ''does not reach
    what anybody does overseas.'' Instead, Waxman said, Microsoft violated the
    law when it sent its software from the United States to other countries to
    be ''installed and stored in foreign computers.''

    Microsoft's lawyer, Theodore B. Olson, countered that the company's software
    is not a component until it is placed on a computer's hard drive or optical
    disc and can actually be used by a computer.

    ''It is our position that the only components in this case are the physical
    manifestations'' of the software, Olson said. It is the foreign manufacturer
    that produces those components, he added, not Microsoft, which only sends a
    master version of its software overseas.

    Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the oral argument. Roberts
    owns shares of Microsoft, according to the court's financial disclosure
    forms.
     
    Chad Harris, Feb 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chad Harris

    Steve Dassin Guest

    Microsoft's lawyer, Theodore B. Olson...

    Everyone should remember him! The darling of the lunatic right who
    paved the way for the supreme court to appoint Bush president.
    Well MS is stupid, they got the 'right' man for the job. If only their
    software engineering antennae was as astute as their politicial one.

    Note his wife, the notorious republican attack dog, was on the 9/11
    plane that crashed in Pa. That is sad.

    www.beyondsql.blogspot.com
     
    Steve Dassin, Feb 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chad Harris

    Scott Guest

    Given a choice I'd have rather it had been Ann Coulter instead.
    --
    Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
    be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
     
    Scott, Feb 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Chad Harris

    Chad Harris Guest

    Ted Olson was chosen by MSFT's VP and General Counsel Brad Smith for two
    reasons:

    He has by virtue of having been the Bush Solicitor General many previous
    apprearances before the S. Ct.
    He has a social relationship with Clarence Thomas --i.e. Clarence Thomas,
    one of the most unqualified individuals ever to get in the S. Ct. building
    let alone (appointed to the Court by Bush the father of the current moronic
    devil whose sole contribution has been to stimulate death into Dover
    Coffins and medical deaths in the thousands with his health care quagmire
    that denies medicine to the elderly and cuts funding for sick children in
    1990).

    Another MSFT sponsered web site--a good one, Slate, lets you know that Ted
    Olson is one of the chairmen of the "Raise money for Scooter as he scoots to
    prison to pay his multimillion dollar legal team"

    http://www.slate.com/id/2136889/

    Ahmm Scootin to Prison as One of the Dumbest Harvard Law Grads ever--Dick
    Cheney's employee Cathie Martin, a fellow Harvard law grad and wife of the
    notoriously Bush Rubber Stamp Keith Martin, chairman of the screw the
    consumer Republican dominated FCC helped send me there.
    http://www.scooterlibby.com/

    Ted Olson has done much to get Allito and Roberts who will do everything
    they can for the next 40 or so years to screw the little guy, the consumer,
    and the mediclaly in need. Just read the stupidly narrow ruling in the
    Phillip Morris opinion that was handed down Tuesday.

    Philip Morris USA v. Williams, No. 05-1256,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/washington/21scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Will these scumbags grant Libby a pardon? It would have to be damn fast if
    it's Fitzgerald's attention to flip LIbby as the main snitch to go after
    Cheney as he should.

    You won't see Ted Olson's fund raising efforts among fat cat arch
    conservatives for the Federal Defender Program. It's only targeted at Libby
    who inherited many millions of dollars from his dad.

    You won't see Libby's cry baby lawyer in a case like this unless you show
    him millions of dollars to assemble a legal team including expensive
    investigation in contrast to many states whose court appointed defenders
    cannot afford to mount defenses for their clients.

    CH
     
    Chad Harris, Feb 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Chad Harris

    Steve Dassin Guest

    I meant 'Well MS isn't stupid...atleast potitically :)

    You seem educated, insightful and can connect dotes.
    What are you doing on an MS forum? -:)

    Keep up the good fight,
    P.S. Do you remember Barabara Olson? She was a piece of work.

    best,
    steve
     
    Steve Dassin, Feb 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Chad Harris

    Chad Harris Guest

    Steve--

    I remember Barbara Olson. She was a chip off the ole dumb as a rock Anne
    Coulter and a quintissential shallow Right Wing Republican woman for a rigid
    screw the non-affluent Ted Olson.

    His closest friends included two people who should be working in the back
    of a burger chef instead of in appellate law--even though his right wing
    zealot law clerks do almost all his writing--Clarence Thomas--(and his wife,
    Ginny Thomas. Thomas is Scalia's trained for 99% obedience puppy dog.

    There are few quality appellate law firms who would hire Thomas to sweep the
    floor.

    She was on her way to the Bill Maher show from DC to LA to spout some of her
    stupid Victoria Tensinguesque inanities when the incompetency of the Bush
    administration allowed her plane to be interrupted.

    MSFT was stupid politically when they hired Ralph Reed who is a heart beat
    away from his former best friend Jack Abramoff and would have been
    prosecuted if the State's Attorney in Texas hadn't been so stupid as to let
    the statute of limitations run. If the current DOJ weren't having Saturday
    Nite Masaquers of US Attorneys who prosecute in areas they don't want
    prosecuted, Reed would have been convicted long ago in Federal court. MSFT
    paid Reed a few million dollars, only firing him when the connection hit the
    Seattle media and Reed's activities were profiled. Do a google with terms
    like Microsoft Ralph Reed Mariana Islands and see what comes up.

    A former White House employee named Susan Ralston should have been convicted
    long ago, but although he had no significant experience whatsoever in
    federal litigation and couldn't write an appellate brief to save his ass
    Gonzales runs DOJ a lot more ruthlessly than Tony Soprano runs his homies.

    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001747.php

    CH
     
    Chad Harris, Feb 23, 2007
    #6
  7. Chad Harris

    Scott Guest

    [.......]
    Slate no longer has any affiliation with Microsoft since they sold it
    to the Washington Post Company.

    You'll note there's no "MSN" anything on the site these days.

    --
    Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
    be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
     
    Scott, Feb 23, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.