Supreme Court Skeptical That US Patent Control Expands Beyond US Borders
from the try-that-again,-please dept
Late last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear yet another patent lawsuit, this one involving Microsoft and AT&T. It wasn't a huge surprise that they agreed to hear it, as they had asked for the administration's thoughts on it earlier. At issue isn't whether or not a patent was violated. Microsoft has already admitted that it violated AT&T patents. The issue concerned the scope of the damages, and whether or not Microsoft was also liable for the copies of the software that were installed overseas. Since the patent is just for the US market, Microsoft contends that software outside the US should not be included in the settlement. AT&T, obviously, disagrees, noting that US patent law does not allow an American company to ship "components" overseas to be assembled for the purpose of avoiding US patent law. The lower courts have sided with AT&T, but it certainly sounds like some of the Supreme Court justices are pretty skeptical about AT&T's position, suggesting that it would be frightening to think of the implications of ruling in AT&T's favor, and suddenly kicking off many new patent lawsuits from US companies looking to get paid for the use of patented products overseas. It could effectively make US patent law expand well beyond our borders -- which could also upset governments around the world who don't think it's fair for US patent law to cover products outside the US. However, even more interesting, is how some of the arguments also highlight why software should never have been considered patentable in the first place. Tim Lee walks through the arguments of AT&T's lawyer, and explains why he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about -- while highlighting how the Supreme Court justices seem to recognize the problems of patenting 1s and 0s as a "set of instructions."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
end-user liability???
It is also interesting to note that the judges are considering that they have never ruled on whether software is patentable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft gets patents in every country it possibly can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patent or Copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A US company, such as Microsoft, tends to get patents around the world. The local patents should apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Joel
Yes, the other company should be able to copy the patent elsewhere. In that scenario, the company selling the product outside the US cannot be considered to be competing. If, on the other hand, the original company feels that overseas markets are theirs as well, they are perfectly capable of applying for a patent in that country's patent system, thus owning patents in all the markets they feel relevant. If they do not, that should be considered enough evidence that they are uninterested in those markets for the copying company to move forward in those other markets.
If the copying company violates such a patent in another country, the suit should be filed in the country where the violation occurred.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Software is not patentable in most countries
Personally, I'd like to see the US adopt the EU model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]