This is the Uniloc-Microsoft case, in which patent troll Uniloc sued MS for its authentication mechanism in Win XP and other products. Uniloc was awarded $338m by a jury, but this was overturned in 2009 by the District Court of Rhode Island, which apparently observed that:
The reversal may support the argument for a patent-focused court, as the Court found that jury members were not able to sufficiently understand the technical details and legal issues to reach a reliable verdict. There is also concern over the obstacles presented by increasing patent litigation to high-technology entrepreneurs and companies, which may inhibit innovation.
For once, we have a judge who stated outright that a jury was incapable of reaching a reliable verdict because it simply didn't grasp the technical details and legal issues involved. This is exactly what many of us have been arguing about in discussions of the Apple-Samsung suit here on HN: some said juries shouldn't need expertise to rule on patent cases. Others argued that patents should be evaluated by people with expertise in the field.
It appears this judge found that this particular jury was lacking in its ability to evaluate the case fairly. (He or she also saw the problem that patent trolling was posing to tech innovation.) Who's to say that this judicial opinion might not be applied to juries in other patent cases? It's a noteworthy ruling in my book.
(Uniloc is also suing Mojang (Minecraft), EA, Square Enix, Adobe, and a host of other companies large and small for patent infringment. See the other thread on the Uniloc lawsuit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523380 )
The reversal may support the argument for a patent-focused court, as the Court found that jury members were not able to sufficiently understand the technical details and legal issues to reach a reliable verdict. There is also concern over the obstacles presented by increasing patent litigation to high-technology entrepreneurs and companies, which may inhibit innovation.
For once, we have a judge who stated outright that a jury was incapable of reaching a reliable verdict because it simply didn't grasp the technical details and legal issues involved. This is exactly what many of us have been arguing about in discussions of the Apple-Samsung suit here on HN: some said juries shouldn't need expertise to rule on patent cases. Others argued that patents should be evaluated by people with expertise in the field.
It appears this judge found that this particular jury was lacking in its ability to evaluate the case fairly. (He or she also saw the problem that patent trolling was posing to tech innovation.) Who's to say that this judicial opinion might not be applied to juries in other patent cases? It's a noteworthy ruling in my book.
(Uniloc is also suing Mojang (Minecraft), EA, Square Enix, Adobe, and a host of other companies large and small for patent infringment. See the other thread on the Uniloc lawsuit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523380 )