SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Microsoft must pay in patent case By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that Microsoft Corp. must pay a $290 million judgment awarded to a small Toronto software company for infringing on one of its patents inside its popular Microsoft Word program. The high court unanimously refused to throw out the judgment against the world's largest software maker. Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in 2007, saying it owned the technology behind a tool used in Microsoft Word. The technology in question gave Word 2003 and Word 2007 users an improved way to edit XML, which is computer code that tells the program how to interpret and display a document's contents. The lower courts say Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent, and ordered the world's largest software maker to pay i4i $290 million and stop selling versions of Word containing the infringing technology. Microsoft wanted the multimillion dollar judgment against it erased because it claims a judge used the wrong standard in instructing the jury that came up with the award. The software company said a jury should determine whether a patent is invalid by a "preponderance" of the evidence instead of the more heightened "clear and convincing" evidence standard instructed by the judge. The Supreme Court said the "clear and convincing" standard was the correct one. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the court's opinion, said the courts have interpreted the law the same way for 30 years. During this period, Congress has often amended the patent law, she said. "Not once, so far as we (and Microsoft) are aware, has it even considered a proposal to lower the standard of proof," Sotomayor said. Microsoft now sells versions of Word that do not contain the technology in question. "While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation," the company said in a statement. Officials at i4i cheered the ruling. "Microsoft tried to gut the value of patents by introducing a lower standard for invalidating patents," said Loudon Owen, chairman of i4i. "It is now 100 percent clear that you can only invalidate a patent based on 'clear and convincing' evidence." Chief Justice John Roberts did not take part in the consideration or judgment in this case because he owns Microsoft Corp. stock. The case is Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 10-290. Using car to flee can be considered violent, court says WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says fleeing police custody in a vehicle can be considered a violent felony. The high court made its ruling last Thursday in the case of Marcus Sykes. Sykes was convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun in 2008. Officials said he was subject to a sentencing enhancement because of two previous felony convictions, one of which was fleeing the police in a car in Indiana. Sykes argued his fleeing conviction shouldn't be considered violent and two federal appeals courts, the 7th Circuit in Chicago and the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, have ruled in opposite ways. The high court said in a 6-3 judgment that Sykes' flight from police can be considered a violent felony. The case is Sykes v. United States, 09-11311. Justices uphold cocaine sentence WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a 10-year prison sentence for cocaine possession, rejecting a claim that harsh penalties in federal law apply only to crack cocaine. The court said last Thursday that the provision of federal law that calls for longer prison terms for crack cocaine possession also includes other forms of "cocaine base, " coca leaves and paste. Federal appeals courts have been split on this issue, which the court resolved last Thursday in a favor of a more inclusive reading of the law. Phone companies must give access WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says large telephone companies have to provide their competitors discounted access to their network. The high court last Thursday unanimously ruled for Talk America, Inc. in its battle to make AT&T give it cost-based rates for using its entrance facilities into its network. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled incumbent telephone companies cannot be required to provide access to entrance facilities at a regulated rate for its competitors. AT&T was trying to charge competitive rates for using its facility to get access to AT&T lines. Talk America argues that AT&T is required under the 1996 Telecommunication Act to provide discounted access to its entrance facilities. The high court overturned the appeals court ruling. The case is Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 10-313 Scalia takes on Congress, a favorite target By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is not the sort who leaves readers wondering what he really thinks, especially when it comes to members of Congress. In two opinions last Thursday, Scalia disparaged lawmakers, not for the first time, as sleepy and lazy. To be sure, the 75-year-old justice will just as eagerly take a shot -- or two or three -- at colleagues on the court who come out on the other side of cases. Scalia has laid out an approach to the law over his quarter-century on the court that rests on the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by the people who wrote it and on the plain language of laws, not the legislative record that accompanies many bills. He also embraces the view that people should turn to their elected officials, not the courts, to solve many problems. Commenting in a case involving cocaine sentences, Scalia wrote briefly to criticize one part of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's majority opinion that delved into legislative history. In particular, Scalia did not like that Sotomayor made reference to congressional testimony by a Yale medical school professor. Scalia said the outcome of the case would be the same even if the professor "had not lectured an undetermined number of likely somnolent congressmen on the 'damaging effects of cocaine smoking on people in Peru.'" In the other case, he dissented from the court's holding that upheld a longer sentence for a repeat offender whose earlier crimes included fleeing police custody in a vehicle. The court has entertained several cases about what constitutes a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The federal law makes defendants eligible for longer prison terms if they have three prior convictions for crimes that are either violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The problem is that while the law names some violent crimes, it also leaves open to interpretation whether other offenses should qualify. Scalia said last Thursday he has had enough of these kinds of cases, which he said result from imprecise criminal laws written by Congress. "Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nitty-gritty," Scalia wrote. Published: Mon, Jun 13, 2011