MS, 특허분쟁 AT&T에 최종승리

(Supreme Court rules in favor of Microsoft in case involving AT&T patent)

미연방대법원은 2007년 4월 30일 미국내 특허의 해외인정범위를 제한하는 판결에서 MS의 손을 들어주었다.

찬성 7, 반대 1의 판결에서 미연방대법원은 MS가 AT&T와의 특허권분쟁에서 책임이 없다고 판시하였다.

이번 판결은 MS의 다른 특허분쟁에도 영향을 줘 세계적 경영규모를 고려할 때 수십억 달러의 비용을 덜어줄 것으로 전망됐다.

AT&T는 MS의 윈도우 운영체계를 사용하는 컴퓨터는 음성인식 소프트웨어에 관한 자사의 기술을 침해한 것이라고 주장하면서, MS에 대한 소송을 제기하였다. AT&T는 윈도우를 OS로 사용하고, 자사의 음성인식 소프트웨어를 사용하는 미국 외에서 생산되는 컴퓨터는 자사의 특허권을 침해했으므로, 손해배상을 받을 권리가 있다고 주장하고 있다.

MS는 미국내에서의 AT&T 특허권 침해는 인정하고 있지만, 특허권 침해를 해외로 확대시켜서는 안된다고 주장하고 있다.

AT&T는 MS가 해외에서 조립할 목적으로 특허받은 제품의 구성품을 외국으로 반출하는 것을 특허권의 침해로 규정하고 있는 1984년 특허법을 위반하고 있다고 주장하고 있다.

MS는 윈도우OS를 전자전송 또는 주기억장치를 이용하여 해외로 반출하고 있다. 이러한 자료가 해외에서 복제되어, 해외에서 제조되는 컴퓨터에 인스톨(install)되고 있다.

다수판결을 쓴 Ginsburg 대법관은 “미연방법은 자국내에서 효력을 가지고, 해외에서는 효력을 가지지 않는다는 가정은 특허법의 경우 특히 중요하게 적용된다”라고 판시하였다.

부시 행정부는 이 사건에서 MS를 지지하였는데, MS와 미연방정부는 컴퓨터코드는 이것이 하드드라이브(hard drive)나 설치디스크(installation disk)에 복제되기까지는 구성품(component)이 아니라고 주장하고 있다.

미연방정부는 해외에서 조립해서 판매를 목적으로 구성품(parts)을 복제하는 것은 아마 외국법이 규제를 하여야 할 사항이라고 보아야 한다고 주장하고 있다.

< 원 문 >

Supreme Court rules in favor of Microsoft in case involving AT&T patent

(AP) - WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court sided with Microsoft Corp. on Monday in a case that restricts the reach of U.S. patents overseas.

In a 7-1 decision, the court found that Microsoft is not liable in a patent dispute with AT&T.

The decision could impact other lawsuits against Microsoft and save the company billions because of the global scope of its operations.

AT&T had sued Microsoft, alleging computers running the Windows operating system infringe on an AT&T technology that compresses speech into computer code.

AT&T said it is entitled to damages for every Windows-based computer manufactured outside the United States which uses the digital speech coder system.

Microsoft acknowledged violations in the United States regarding the AT&T patent, while insisting the infringement should not be extended internationally.

AT&T said Microsoft ran afoul of a 1984 law making it patent infringement for a company to ship components of a patented product to a foreign country for assembly there.

Microsoft ships its Windows-operating system to foreign countries on master disks or via electronic transmissions. That data is copied by foreign companies which install it on the computers they manufacture.

"The presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world applies with particular force in patent law," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion.

Neither Windows software nor a computer standing alone without Windows installed infringes AT&T's patent, Ginsburg added.

U.S. patent law is inapplicable to the export of blueprints and there is no reason to think that Congress intended "to place the information Microsoft dispatched from the United States in a separate category," Ginsburg wrote.

The Bush administration supported Microsoft in the case.

Microsoft and the U.S. government say computer code is not a component until it is copied onto a hard drive or installation disk.

Copying parts abroad for assembly and sale abroad is properly the subject of foreign law, the Justice Department solicitor general's office told the court.

In a separate unanimous ruling in this area, the justices said that a federal appeals court had gone too far in embracing a standard that has fueled an era of patent protection.

The court said a federal appeals court applied the standard in a manner that is too narrow and too rigid.

The case addresses one of the most basic issues in patent law: How to determine whether a product is obvious and therefore not worthy of a patent.

"Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may ... deprive prior inventions of their value," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In the case of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia had upheld a patent for adjustable gas pedals. This court hears all appeals in the field of patents.

The legal test at issue in the Teleflex lawsuit has been criticized by the Bush administration as leading to an unwarranted extension of patent protection to claimed inventions that are obvious. Critics of the test say it results in less competition and stifles innovation. Proponents warned that throwing out the standard would upset decades of settled law.

To invalidate a patent, a challenger must show that all parts of a claimed invention were known previously. In addition, the challenger must show that there is a prior "teaching, suggestion or motivation" to combine these prior technologies to produce the invention.

"Helpful insights" that the standard provides "need not become rigid and mandatory formulas," Kennedy wrote.