The Landscape of Patent Policy, Free Essay for Students

In America, there is as a patent law set by the federal government indicating that there is no infringement of the patent of a product when another State purchases a commodity. However, in section 271(f) which has been in application since 1984, it indicates that this situation does not occur when products from America are sold to other countries for value addition (Sacksteder, 2007). The AT& T has a patent on the computers that accept the digital codes and can compress speech. The operating system of the Microsoft can infringe that copyright since their windows can accommodate software codes that help in the computer processing in the manner patented by AT & T, has licensed (Eisenach & Lenard, 2002). On these claims, AT & T charged Microsoft for infringing on their patent rights due to their liability of installation of windows to foreign countries.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Microsoft prior handling

Any doubt that the conduct of Microsoft in their previous administration of the patent litigation issues falls beyond section 271(f)'s compass would find a solution due to the assumption of extraterritoriality. International conduct has been the domain that presides over international law and in issues Vis a Vis patent area, since in most cases, the code is found to embody various policies of judgment on the rights of inventors, the public as well as the competitors (Sacksteder, 2007). However, it is the foreign laws that Microsoft adhered to, and not those of the United States; it will check the manufacturer as well as the component's sale of the patented inventions in other states. If the AT& T wishes to stop copying of their innovation in neighboring nations, the only solution for them would be to obtain and enforce the foreign patents.

a. Section 271 (f) provides accountability to the international supply for a patented invention and its parts where the components, in this case, are uncombined in part or whole. Under this provision, the AT & T speech processing, computers are patent commodities.

b. In this situation, Microsoft failed to supply their products from America. However, the technology used to make copies of the windows was from the United States and originated from the AT & T, Microsoft produced them in foreign countries as software and installed in other countries. Judge Rader, in his ruling never saw any violation of AT & T patent rights (Yeh, 2007). This is because a master copy was developed and distributed in foreign countries. The judge also found that the software developed by Microsoft was not a physical component of any other patented commodity in the United States.

c. The Atal is also referred to as the 580 patent. The patent titled as the Digital Speech Coder which contains forty-three claims among them is the four reissue claims together with the seven figures. The techniques used in this situation, was similar to audio coding and audio data compression to transmit the information to the human auditory system (Dimolitsas, 1993).

3. 580 suits on AT&T and Strategy Management

Under the 580 license, the AT&T had alleged the Microsoft Company that their products had their speech codes which included NetMeeting and Windows among the many other programs. AT&T accused the International Telecommunication Union, which was a corporation that administers and establishes the technical standards in the industry of communication technologies which adopted the 580 patent technologies to be practiced globally (Lee, 2007). AT&T, regarding this patent, said that Microsoft never bought the license for the usage of the 580 patent technologies.

4. Culbert's AT&T Lawyer

After examining the readings with the aim of excluding the coverage of foreign-made copies of the software created a loophole which favors the makers of the software. After making considerations of the issue in court, the Congress failed to address the other disputable gaps as described by AT &T (Lindgren, 2015). The court was unable to seek compensation on the violation of the patent rights for AT &T since the speech decoding Software's were produced and sold in foreign countries and not in the United States. The seeks of the AT & T had to be left to the Congress to finalize a decision on what would be the most justifiable ruling in the case presented by AT & T

References

Dimolitsas, S. (1993). Characterization of low-rate digital voice coder performance with nonvoice signals. Speech Communication, 12(2), 135-144. doi:10.1016/s0167-6393(05)80005-6

Eisenach, J. A., & Lenard, T. M. (2002). In the Matter of United States v. Microsoft Corp and New York State v. Microsoft Corp., Proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1260409

Sacksteder, M. (2007). Unincorporated software as an idea: US Supreme Court limits the extraterritorial effect of US patents for software inventions. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2(8), 506-508. doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpm106

Lee, T. (2007). Free Software Movement-Microsoft and free software movement tag-team. Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. doi:10.4135/9781412956215.n336

Lindgren, J. (2015, July 10). Microsoft - Court of Appeals Opinion. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/microsoft-court-appeals-opinion

Yeh, B. (2012). Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Exporting Software and the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1959848