

Microsoft to challenge patents in Supreme Court - kenjackson
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/microsoft-gets-u-s-supreme-court-hearing-in-case-against-i4i-of-toronto.html

======
nopassrecover
"Microsoft, which had $5.41 billion in profit in the most recent quarter,
hasn’t yet paid any damages to I4i. The unit that sells Office is Microsoft’s
biggest, with $5.13 billion in sales in the quarter that ended Sept. 30."

Should that be read as an incidental fact (i.e. Microsoft's _software_ sales
are 5.13 of 5.41 billion) or does Office really account for that much of
Microsoft's income?

Without more technical details the patent seems arbitrary to me (I thought the
same at the time I first heard about it) but I would argue prior use shouldn't
prohibit patents either as it encourages patents before development (indeed
any beta software would then not be later patentable which would hurt a lot of
startups who release before investment):

"Microsoft argued in defense that I4i had included its innovation in a product
it sold to a client more than a year before it filed its patent application.
That prior use would have rendered the invention ineligible for patenting
under federal law."

