3 ms·

Patent link: http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&dq=uniloc+registration http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&dq=uniloc+... didn't serial-cod

Patent link: http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&dq=uniloc+registration http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&dq=uniloc+... didn't serial-code-based shareware registration schemes exist before the 1993 filing date? certainly shareware and the concept of "registering" did -- maybe the novel part of the patent is the idea of an identifier tied to your environment as a constituent part of the serial #?

inerte 18y ago
I hate software patents, but the article mentions its author presented to MS, and the company knowingly infringed it. Knowingly, I guess, it's the key here. MS knew they were doing "something illegal", but decided to go anyway. Of course, neither I or the article present any proof, as an internal corporate email saying "Yay! Let's do it anyway", but if we assume the judge gathered enough evidence to show this was done, then damages are owned. USD 388m worth? No idea.
- wglb 18y ago
  With patents, you are not allowed to infringe, knowingly or not.