[Robotgroup] Godzilla vs Mothra of Software reaches US Supreme Court

[Dan Vogler]

Supreme Court Scolds Microsoft, AT&T Lawyers In Patent Case 
By J. Nicholas Hoover, InformationWeek
Thu. Feb. 22, 2007 
Broad discussion of patent law at the U.S. Supreme Court will have to wait to
another day. Justices of the Supreme Court posed tough questioning to lawyers
from AT&T and Microsoft Wednesday in a case focusing on whether Microsoft
should be held liable for infringing an AT&T-owned patent on processes to
digitally compress speech by sending certain software overseas. But they spent
much of the time debating the definitions of words like code, software, and
component. 
The central legal issue of the case hinges on rather obscure legal code that
says infringement concerns are merited if one party supplies "components" of a
patented invention abroad in order to be combined in an infringing way.
Microsoft ships code overseas in master disks that get copied before being
installed in a manner that justices agreed today would be infringing, had it
all taken place on U.S. soil. The question then is whether software code is a
component of a the larger patented process to digitally compress speech. 
It's possible that in their decision, the justices could give broad opinions on
the scope of patent law, how it affects innovation and even outsourcing, but
that appears less likely since oral arguments skirted over these topics
completely. 
That, despite the fact that Microsoft and its backers argue a victory for AT&T
could put U.S. software developers at a disadvantage relative to foreign
competitors, some of whom operate in countries with more lenient patent
regulations. An AT&T win would "hinder software development in the U.S. and
encourage companies to move their software development overseas," says Roger
Kennedy, who represents Oracle in the Coalition For Patent Fairness. The
coalition comprises a number of other major U.S. software vendors, including
Microsoft, Adobe Systems, and Red Hat. 
Judges asked both sides how to define computer code, software, and computer
components, and scolded Microsoft for suggesting software isn't valuable unless
coupled with a computer. "Microsoft doesn't say please buy our disk because
it's the prettiest disk in the business," Justice Anthony Kennedy said at one
point. "It says buy our program because the program means something." On the
flipside, justices worried that a decision in favor or AT&T could be overbroad,
turning any transmission of information about a patented process into a
potential patent infringement. 
In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling that
sided with AT&T. Microsoft attorney Theodore Olson told the Supreme Court a
"very significant amount" of money is involved in the case; the court is
expected to rule in July. Maybe then we'll get some real opinions on the
patent-ability of software, how patents can affect innovation at home and
abroad, and just how badly needed patent reform is in the information era. 


END