Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
2007 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).[2]
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. | |
---|---|
Argued February 21, 2007 Decided April 30, 2007 | |
Full case name | Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corp. |
Docket no. | 05-1056 |
Citations | 550 U.S. 437 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | No. 1:01-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y. (Mar. 5, 2004); affirmed, 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 549 U.S. 991 (2006). |
Holding | |
Federal Circuit's judgment was reversed, Microsoft was not liable for patent infringement under §271(f) | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Ginsburg, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Souter |
Concurrence | Alito (all but footnote 14), joined by Thomas, Breyer |
Dissent | Stevens |
Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
35 U.S.C. § 271(f) |
In this case, Microsoft exported abroad the "master version" of its Windows software disk, which incorporated a speech processing function claimed by one of AT&T's patents, with the intent that such software be copied abroad for installation onto foreign-manufactured computers.
According to the Supreme Court, liability for such unauthorized replication and installation would have to arise under the patent laws of those foreign countries, not the U.S. Patent Act.[3] Although AT&T argued that the Supreme Court's decision actually created a "loophole" for software makers to avoid liability under § 271(f), the Supreme Court explained that it is Congress, not the Court, that is responsible for addressing any such loopholes.[4]