On CBS.com: Christine maybe a racist
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
102 TalkBacks

By Paul Festa
Posted on ZDNet News: Dec 26, 2003 9:32:00 PM

Microsoft agreed to pay $60 million and to license a plaintiff's whiteboard technology following a somewhat stiffer but not yet finalized jury verdict against the software giant.

The settlement, announced by SPX and its Imagexpo unit Wednesday, gives Microsoft the right to use technology covered under patent #5,206,934, "Method and apparatus for interactive computer conferencing."

A U.S. district court jury in Richmond, Va., on Nov. 14 had awarded SPX $62.5 million in damages after finding that Microsoft had violated the patent with its NetMeeting software. Since the court had yet to dispense with final motions in the case, the software giant still had a window of opportunity to settle the case under more favorable terms.

Microsoft has spent much of the year on the patent defensive, though the SPX verdict pales in comparison to its patent nemesis, the University of California and Eolas patent covering browser plug-in technology.

"This settlement is another step in Microsoft's efforts to resolve legal conflicts, to focus on the future, and to continue building great software," company representative Stacy Drake said Friday.

Microsoft has until Tuesday to pay the $60 million, which SPX said would be reduced by expenses associated with the lawsuit.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 102 Talkback(s)
DOS
It started with DOS. They won't stop. You already
see more & more OS-X in WinXP. Next thing you'll
have is 49% of Linux spun in with MS CRAP!
The kid will always steal a cookie, until they... (Read the rest)
Posted by: Misterecs Posted on: 01/01/04 You are currently: Logged In as: a Guest  | Login | Terms of Use
MS should fight this  Nigel Johnstone | 12/26/03
Change that to "MS should've fought this"  Nigel Johnstone | 12/26/03
your right, this patent is a joke.  RoyTyrellFl | 12/26/03
there's more  stephen732@... | 12/27/03
$60 million is a joke to you?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/27/03
Grow up Bittie...  GRindinAxTaRupy | 12/27/03
It is a joke IF  TechDiva_z | 12/30/03
Hey, 60 million is nothing, now they have a license.  DonnieBoy | 12/26/03
this is ms  JWatson77 | 12/26/03
re : ms should fight this  JWatson77 | 12/26/03
nah...MS needs to resolve this fluff and move on  jimk_z | 12/27/03
You believe that rot?  in-DUH-vidual | 12/27/03
What truth is this?  IT_User | 12/27/03
whatever  gcoller | 12/30/03
No...  Martin Marvinski | 12/29/03
MS just invest money in your competition and industry  FilledOut | 12/26/03
Good Job MS  Kamakazii | 12/26/03
excellent spin  tic swayback | 12/29/03
how come  JWatson77 | 12/27/03
nice link to patent  snsh | 12/27/03
Open source is getting squeezed  Anton Philidor | 12/27/03
You are right...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/27/03
You are right...Nope  nite_w0lf | 12/27/03
What does that have to do with MS patents?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/27/03
Can you point to one example?...  GRindinAxTaRupy | 12/27/03
How about a LEGAL open source DVD player?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/28/03
Well?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/28/03
PLenty oF LegaLstuFf  GRindinAxTaRupy | 12/28/03
I'll tackle these.  Damon K | 12/28/03
Bitties blinkered FUD  jellyclock | 12/29/03
Gee, not a single honest answer in the bunch.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
To Bit above: Not a single honest answer?  Damon K | 12/29/03
Damon K. come on in...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
The referee appears to be biased.  Anton Philidor | 12/29/03
Didn't realize I was playing doubles.  Anton Philidor | 12/29/03
There are Legal DVD players for Linux  voska | 12/29/03
XP DOES NOT HAVE DVD PLAYER BUILT IN!  voska | 12/29/03
I love this guy  tic swayback | 12/29/03
I had no idea...  Damon K | 12/29/03
Confirmation! Thanks Anton  IT_User | 12/29/03
Required Payments for Office DRM software from Microsoft  Anton Philidor | 12/29/03
Before I go ballistic...  IT_User | 12/29/03
Open Source DVD player at work?  TechDiva_z | 12/30/03
To TechDiva above...  Damon K | 12/30/03
You are getting sqeezed!  GRindinAxTaRupy | 12/28/03
Poor little fellow.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
Token Title  Martin Marvinski | 12/29/03
You missed the point completely.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
Why not?  Spoon Jabber | 12/29/03
Spoon Jabber... Why Not.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
Simple question.  Damon K | 12/29/03
Okay, I'll bite  IT_User | 12/27/03
Legal problems from violating patents.  Anton Philidor | 12/27/03
You're right - anything can be patented  IT_User | 12/28/03
And you cite the very problem I see.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/28/03
Submarine patents?  IT_User | 12/28/03
What would you call this patent?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
Provide more information  IT_User | 12/29/03
Oops, sorry  IT_User | 12/29/03
Three candidate labels  IT_User | 12/30/03
No open source community? No projects?  Anton Philidor | 12/28/03
So why didn't it happen?  IT_User | 12/28/03
Tougher in the big leagues  Anton Philidor | 12/28/03
So business is complacent?  IT_User | 12/28/03
Yes, business is being complacent, for now.  Anton Philidor | 12/29/03
Your vision of the future?  IT_User | 12/29/03
Because it wasn't a competitor.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
Prudence good, paranoia not  IT_User | 12/29/03
Patents to be ignored?  Anton Philidor | 12/29/03
Got me buffaloed here  IT_User | 12/29/03
Close enough.  Anton Philidor | 12/29/03
Require MS server also?  IT_User | 12/29/03
How do you find vetted software?  IT_User | 12/30/03
I don't understand why  michael-t | 12/27/03
(nt): How much money has m$ paid you so far?  stephen732@... | 12/27/03
I don't understand why!!  nite_w0lf | 12/27/03
Um, accounting isn't your strong suit is it?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/27/03
Thank you for my laugh of the day!  TechDiva_z | 12/30/03
when windows include lcds  JWatson77 | 12/27/03
(NT) MS again Proves it's etter to STEAL IP and Pay Suits than to Innovate.  Bit's_Conscience | 12/27/03
(NT) (OOPS) Previous post should read "Better" - not "etter".  Bit's_Conscience | 12/27/03
MS just do what Sun, IBM, etc etc do  FilledOut | 12/27/03
This is not a Patent - it's legacy work - reread computer text 202  lbrader | 12/28/03
Good question, why did MS pay? A possible answer.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/28/03
Not a great answer...  Anton Philidor | 12/28/03
Or maybe  nite_w0lf | 12/29/03
or maybe, just maybe  K B | 12/29/03
Why they paid  voska | 12/29/03
Strange Settlement  Emperor_shrub | 12/29/03
The U.S. Patent Laws need to be completely re-written  pinhchen@... | 12/28/03
Amen  Update victim | 12/29/03
Swing patent was meant as a joke  tic swayback | 12/29/03
Joke maybe, but enforceble  TechDiva_z | 12/30/03
Important message for No_Ax !!!  NT Admin | 12/29/03
What was 'important' in your post?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
It was important to make explicit your deliberate lies  jellyclock | 12/29/03
Such a poor atttempt, I expected better.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
This is a serious issue  NT Admin | 12/29/03
Trust me, lot better men than you have tried.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/29/03
My final comment  NT Admin | 12/29/03
Wonder why...  who_cares | 12/30/03
DOS  Misterecs | 01/01/04

What do you think?

CIO Sessions

advertisement
Click Here