The Hindu Business Line : Sticking to the patent lane

ON September 8, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided an interesting case, Network Commerce Inc vs Microsoft Corporation. The dispute was that Microsoft had infringed Patent No. 6,073,124 (or simply, 124 patent) of Network. This patent is about "a method and system for purchasing electronic information, such as software or audio files, over a computer network".

Patent, as you know, has `claims' describing the structure of an invention in precise and exact terms. For this, they use "a long established formal style and precise terminology," explains the law glossary on www.nolo.com. "In concept, a patent claim marks the boundaries of the patent in the same way as the legal description in a deed specifies the boundaries of the property," is a helpful analogy on the site.

Three-four computers

Network's description of the 124 patent had `two general embodiments', viz. the simpler and the complex. While the simpler one involved three computers, the `more complex embodiment' involved four computers. For instance, one of the claims (No. 7), of the `simpler' variety, read, "A method in a computer system for conducting electronic commerce, including: requesting a first web server to order electronic data; receiving in response to the request a download component for coordinating the download of the electronic data; and under control of the download component, downloading from a second web server the electronic data."

Another, of the same `simple' specie, was No. 11 that delineated the patent as a method including "receiving from a client computer a request to purchase electronic data; and in response to receiving the request, sending to the client computer a download component... for coordinating the download of the electronic data from a supplier computer to the client computer, the supplier computer for downloading to the client computer the electronic data when requested by the download component."

You can trace the `three computers' in the court's interpretation of the claims: "A first computer (operated by the customer) sends a request for electronic data to a second computer, which is the store computer of an online merchant, and, in response, the second computer sends the first computer a download component. The download component coordinates the download of the requested electronic data (typically content such as software or audio files) from a third computer to the first computer. The location of the third computer is not disclosed."

If you are ready, we can move on to the `complex' type involving `four computers'. This was in claim No. 1 thus: "A computer system for conducting electronic commerce, including: a store computer that receives requests for electronic data from a client computer and that, in response to receiving the request, sends to the client computer a download component that coordinates the download of the electronic data, a supplier computer that receives a request from the download component of the client computer to download the electronic data and that, in response to receiving the request, sends the electronic data and a licensing component to the client computer, the licensing component for coordinating the licensing of the electronic data, and a licensing computer that receives a request from the licensing component of the client computer to license electronic data and that, in response to receiving the request, determines whether access to the electronic data is to be allowed at the client computer, and when access is allowed, sends a notification that access is allowed to the client computer."

You must be huffing and puffing, but that's only one instance of legalese plus computerese to ruffle your ease; and there's still a long way to go, because I'm only on page 4 of 19. Yet, in simple words, as the court put it, "... the third computer sends the first computer a licensing component. The licensing component coordinates the licensing of the electronic data by requesting a license from a fourth computer. If the fourth computer determines that access to the electronic data is allowable, it sends a notification to the first computer permitting access to the electronic data."

WMP and metafiles

Network wasn't happy with the way Microsoft's Windows Media Player (WMP) and Metafiles worked. "Windows Media Player 10 is the all-in-one media player that provides the best experience for discovering, playing, and taking your digital entertainment anywhere," says www.microsoft.com. For starters, WMP is "a software program used to play digital audio and video content files," as in the text of the verdict of the court. WMP is a compiled program, meaning that its program instructions have been pre-processed into machine language and are ready for execution by the operating system, noted the Circuit Judges Mayer, Friedman, and Dyk.

Metafiles are `non-compiled text files' that WMP interprets; and the information in metafiles "can include the location or address of an associated content file." Metafiles can direct WMP to a Web site, noted the court. "In one scenario, a user viewing a Web page on an Internet browser selects a link on the Web page corresponding to a particular content file. This causes the browser to download a metafile, which is passed to Windows Media Player, which in turn reads the address contained in the metafile and sends a request for the content file to the address in the metafile (that is, the address of the computer that has the electronic content)."

Then, the computer receiving the request sends content to WMP, which plays that out for the user. "Metafiles can also be used to perform more complex tasks, such as inserting advertisements and setting the order of downloads in a playlist." If that seems to you all law and no play, to Network, though, it was all infringement, and not fair. So it filed a suit on December 6, 2001, saying that Microsoft's WMP infringed on the 124 patent.

Download + component = download component?

At the district court level, one of the phrases that drew attention was `download component'. "By the plain language of the claims," download component required an executable file or program, but that does not necessarily need to be merchandise-specific, the district court had then said. It had reasoned that the words `download' and `component' in combination `imply a part that downloads or a part that plays an active role in downloading' and therefore must be `an executable file or program.' Also because such a component `coordinates' or `controls' the download of information' and `makes requests for electronic content from a source computer.'

On March 10, 2003, the district court's ruling went in Microsoft's favour. The court explained why there was no infringement of the 124 patent. One, a download component must independently `coordinate or control the download of information, (and) request electronic content from a source computer', but metafiles weren't such components because "on their own (metafiles are neither able to coordinate or control the download of information, nor request electronic content from a source computer." And two, a download component must be "downloaded onto a client computer in response to a request for electronic content," which WMP was not. Network could not show that WMP "is downloaded onto a client computer in response to a request for electronic content".

An aggrieved Network marched to the Federal Circuit, objecting to the district court's construction of the phrase `download component'. According to the company, the phrase should have been interpreted as "any part of a computer system - including a program, an application, or a data or text file - that arranges for, or works together with one or more other parts of the system to arrange for, the transfer or delivery of the requested electronic data from one computer or server to another."

Seen thus, both WMP and the metafiles satisfy the claim limitation because each "works together with one or more other parts of the system to arrange for, the transfer or delivery of the requested electronic data from one computer or server to another," said Network. How broad a scope, you may wonder, because that line within quotes seems to cover almost everything that happens on our networks. So, it must be to your relief that the Circuit Court rejected Network's interpretation and agreed to the district court's reasoning.

The phrase `download component' looks innocuous, but you'd be surprised to know that "it has no commonly understood meaning reflected in general dictionaries or similar sources". Network too conceded that the phrase didn't have a definition; so, it invited the court "to combine individual dictionary definitions" of the two words `download' and `component'. The court said, "Under that construction, any part of a system involved in the transfer of data from one computer to another would be a download component. This is not a tenable theory in light of the specification."

One other argument of Network was that the district court did not give it more time for `additional discovery' to find if Microsoft or its customers downloaded WMP to users in response to requests for electronic data. However, the argument didn't find favour with the Circuit Court either, which remarked, "Network Commerce had nearly 11 months to conduct discovery before it declared bankruptcy."

A case that you may like to download in full from www.fedcir.gov.

Cases@TheHindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
On a collision course

Sticking to the patent lane

Debut time

Up for grabs

Look up for inspiration

Buddies all

Trouble with modem

Tickers in XP

XviD codes installation problem

Letting light and life in

Quiz

Key to information locked up in databases