This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2010/07/27/i4i-scotus/.
Posted in America, Microsoft, Patents at 4:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The i4i case, which is hinged on a software patent, can reportedly end up being decided at the highest possible level, but the company capable of doing so is Microsoft
AS THE i4i case carries on, it becomes apparent that Microsoft too can sometimes suffer from software patents, which it compares to mathematics when the software patents put it in the victim's side.
=> ↺ i4i case | compares to mathematics when the software patents put it in the victim's side
According to the Canadian news, this whole i4i brouhaha may get escalated to the Supreme Court:
The U.S. Patent Office has handed software giant Microsoft its third setback in a patent dispute with Toronto’s i4i.In January, a judge ruled that Microsoft’s Word software infringed on a patent owned by i4i.[...]Microsoft still has as a final option an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That would require that an application be filed by Aug. 27.
Red Hat’s Wildeboer asks: “Will Microsoft now finally pay or go [to] Supreme Court with i4i patents?”
Ruiseabra responds with: “I hope Microsoft goes to Supreme Court. More nails [are] needed for software patents coffin after Bilski.”
In other patent news, Toyota loses to a tiny entity with a deadly monopoly. How similar to Microsoft’s situation.
=> ↺ other patent news | ↺ Toyota
RedGhost was the first of a few of you to pass along Jalopnik’s detailed story of Toyota’s long patent battle with Paice and its founder Alex Severinsky, over patents on hybrid engine technology, which was just settled. We’ve actually covered the story before, last year when Paice — who had already won a court battle — aimed to get a second crack at the apple, by taking the case to the ITC, which potentially could bar the import of Toyota vehicles into the US if it found that Toyota infringed. Toyota settled the case the day the ITC was to begin its investigation, and it did so for one reason: the potential liability from a possible injunction isn’t worth the uncertainty. So you pay to make it go away.
The ITC is again being a nuisance [1, 2, 3]. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).