Microsoft, Autodesk Guilty of Patent Infringement 212
rfunches writes "A Texas jury has awarded $133 million in damages to David Colvin, after finding Microsoft and Autodesk guilty of infringing upon Colvin's two software patents for software antipiracy protection. Colvin's company, z4 Technologies Inc., filed patents for 'passwords and codes assigned to individual software copies to prevent unauthorized copies.' Microsoft was ordered to pay $115 million, and Autodesk $18 million for infringement of the product-activation schemes. A spokesman from Microsoft contends that 'Microsoft developed its own product-activation technologies well before z4 Technologies filed for its patent.' Appeals are expected."
Re:When Was This Filed? (Score:3, Informative)
The patent for 'a method and apparatus for securing software to reduce unauthorized use' (patent # 6,044,471) is dated March 28, 2000.
The patent for 'a method for securing software to decrease software piracy' (patent # 6,785,825) is dated August 31, 2004.
Date of invention not date of filing (Score:4, Informative)
Another business plan via lawsuits (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.z4.com/ [z4.com] appears to be yet another company that does nothing, but likes to get paid well for it.
I love it how this link, http://www.z4.com/piracy.php [z4.com] , talks about how Microsoft and Autodesk are victims of piracy.
A whois search on z4.com says that Colvin Design Company set up the registrar info. Well, a google search on Colvin Design Company yields nothing. Colvin Design is supposedly located in Commerce Township, MI. z4 is from Oakland County, MI about 12 miles away from Commerce Township.
No products or anything of substance on the z4 site.
Looks like another lawyer trick.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, they actually paint a nice shiny target on themselves [ffii.org] by getting all those defensive patents, making themselves more likely to be sued (see the Q&A at the bottom of the page)
explaination of the patents (Score:4, Informative)
6044471
This one deals with a system where you provide information to the company and are given a code. When you install the software you are required to enter the code or series of codes and it checks with the companies databases and veries that the password and other info is correct. There are clauses in it to deal with multiple passwords, and shutting down software that has incorrectly entered password.
6785825
This is kind of like the first but instead you are provided a key with the software which provided use for a limited time. Then during that time you are required to call the registration company and provide information and you receive an additional code which then unlocks the software for future use.
This is not your average enter the 16digit code/password to use the software it is the Windows XP thing where internet access is required.
Re:Patent Link (Score:3, Informative)
You send the customer the product and a password/key. They enter the password/key and register, and you send them a second password/key, which they use to run the software thereafter.
Filed in 1998.
------------------
The second patent extends to DRM to DRM-enable password authentication.
Filed in 2003. Basically makes it so that running the software requires checking a DRM-registered authentication code with a DRM enabled device.
-------------
As it stands this guy is going cash a check for every DRM enabled software program. He wrote two very basic broad patents to cover protection against digital piracy.
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword (Score:3, Informative)
a Patent, unlike a Trademark, can be selectively enforced. A trademark has to be enforced against all infringement or else you lose it.
You are right about the stupidity of some of these patents... I blame allowing business methods and software patents in in the first place... of course the judge responsible for this debacle was a patent lawyer by profession and they never ever make any effort to reduce their potential workload... oh nosirree... any chance to expand and they gladly take it...
Re:Patent Link (Score:3, Informative)
And I remember seeing DRM keys for -serial- devices for a -while- (since at least 1994); mostly for CASE tools, etc., (stuff that costs $5k per license).
As always, the key to a patent is its specificity. The first patent says
1) We send you the software and a product key.
2) You register that product with that key
3) We send you a second password for that product
4) You use the second password indefinitely
With shareware you skip the step where each copy of software has a unique key. This patent makes each shipped copy of software uniquely accessible.
Also, the key with the DRM is the same.
1) We send you the product with a product key
2) You register it by sending us an authentication code
that includes information about YOUR DRM.
3) We send you a second authentication that requires you
have both the original software AND the DRM machine
Again, this is just a second-tier of protection over most schemes, making
each shipped copy of software uniquely accessible only on one DRM machine.
Please note, I am trying to interpret the relevant patent, and not defending whether it should have been issued in the first place!
Re:Patent Link (Score:5, Informative)
1) We send you the software and a product key.
2) You register that product with that key
3) We send you a second password for that product
4) You use the second password indefinitely
This sounds just like SGI's key-o-matic. If you buy one of their "licensed" products, you get CDs and an entitlement ID. Send a properly formatted email with the entitlement ID and the system IDs (essentially the ethernet adress of the workstation) to key-o-matic@sgi.com or was that liceses@ ?) and get license passwords back (that's what the license manager software actually calls them) that are locked to those systems back by email. Keyomatic is at least 10 years old, if one is to believe this usenet post [google.com].