Jury verdicts, final decisions, and appeals
It would really help the credibility of your position if your contributors learned the difference between the jury verdict and the final decision in a trail, and between a trial and an appeal.
On this MS page somebody wrote, incorrectly:
(1) that the Uniloc jury verdict was overturned on appeal. It was not; it was vacated by the trial judge in his final decision. It appears that two appeals have been filed, one on 21 Oct and the other on 3 Nov, but neither has been heard and no details are posted on the public portion of the USCAFC web site; if you have a PACER account you could probably find out more.
(2) that MS lost the appeal in i4i v Microsoft. As of 26 November the appeal court has not yet rendered its decision, though the appeal was heard on an expedited basis on 23 September. The injunction preventing MS from selling word with the infringing code was stayed pending appeal by the appeal court.
- This is certainly an area for improvement.
- The information here often comes via news articles rather than official documents, so this type of error is common. I'll dig into the cases you've mentioned and will fix the article (or, since it's a wiki, you could fix it directly). Thanks for pointing this out - I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Ciaran 16:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update: I still have to look into this. Ciaran (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (EDT)
 Other cases
While looking at the CAFC logs (for 2008), I saw these two patent cases:
- Research Corp. Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
- Amado v. Microsoft Corp.
Maybe someone can take a look and see if they should be added. Ciaran 18:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft seems extremely interesting. If I understood correctly, Microsoft is using "Software is math" sort of defense there. These links seem relevant:   Sanxiyn 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, that sounds worth a read. Thanks for highlighting it. We could make a page for it to work out what they're arguing and how it fits in with their usual positions. Ciaran 15:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't read those two articles. The court ruling only says this about validity: "Microsoft filed a motion for partial summary judgment that the same claims are invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1." and "this court remands with instructions to assign this case to a different judge for a proper determination of validity and infringement on the merits." Ciaran 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 Suits, threats and statements
Just wondering if the article might benefit from pulling together sections on a common theme, for example:
- Create a new section on Microsoft's patent suits and threats to hold subsections on unsubstantiated claims, victims sued, victims who settled out of court, and other threats made.
- Create a new section on say Microsoft statements could include the patent promise and Gates' memo.
steelpillow 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)