On BNET: Why you should date your co-workers
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Joris Evers, News.com
Posted on ZDNet News: Aug 25, 2006 11:00:00 AM

After initial courtroom sparring in Symantec's trade secret lawsuit against Microsoft, the companies are now shaping up for the real fight.

A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday approved an order that lets both parties in the case file documents under seal. They can now fully cooperate in gathering information pertinent to the case, since sensitive details won't become public record. An actual trial, should it come down to that, is still far away, though. In a court filing last week, both Symantec and Microsoft suggested trial dates in December of next year.

"We want to drive this forward," Michael Schallop, director of legal affairs at Symantec, said in an interview Wednesday. "We think we're right, and we will be able to prove it. The sooner we get this resolved the better, whether through trial or through a negotiated resolution."

Symantec sued Microsoft in May, accusing it of misappropriating intellectual property related to data storage technology. The case is part of a high-stakes battle in the software industry, where giant Microsoft is increasingly entering Symantec's turf of security software. It's the first time that Cupertino, Calif.-based Symantec and Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft have been on opposite sides in a legal dispute.

The gloves have come off. Microsoft countersued in late June, alleging Symantec violated three of its patents. It also challenged the validity of the Symantec patent central to that company's case.

Case history

Symantec and Microsoft's legal sparring can be seen in a series of filings over the past few months.

May 18, 2006: Symantec sues Microsoft, charging misappropriation of intellectual property and violation of a license related to data storage technology.

June 15, 2006: Microsoft asks court to dismiss some claims under federal law because they are pre-empted by state law.

June 16, 2006: Microsoft countersues Symantec, claiming it violated three Microsoft patents.

July 31, 2006:  Microsoft asks U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review a Symantec patent key to the case. It also asks the court to split the case into two: a contract dispute and a patent case.

Aug. 15, 2006:  Parties file a status report suggesting a trial date in Dec. 2007 and a plan for discovery. Plus, a motion for protective order is filed by both parties, looking to keep secrets confidential.

Aug. 22, 2006: Judge approves protective order, denies Microsoft's request to split the case, and sets a new hearing for Oct. 11.

Source: U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington, Symantec, Microsoft.

Both moves are common in patent cases. Less common, however, is that Microsoft has also asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the Symantec patent.

"Symantec's claims are unfounded because Microsoft actually purchased intellectual property rights for all relevant technologies from Veritas (Software) in 2004," Steve Aeschbacher, an associate general counsel at Microsoft, said in an interview Wednesday. "We believe Symantec is infringing on our intellectual property."

Covered by standard?
Microsoft is arguing that the crucial Symantec patent is invalid because it is the same as an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standard that existed more than a year before the patent was filed, according to a copy of the request to the Patent Office dated July 31.

The U.S. patent in question, No. 6,826,661, describes "methods and systems for storage architectures." Microsoft claims that it covers the same ground as the IEEE 1244.1-2000 standard for media management system architecture.

The Patent Office has not yet responded to Microsoft's request; it may take several weeks, a representative for the software giant said.

Symantec strongly believes in the merits of its case and the validity of its patent claims, Schallop said. "Our comment on these issues will be reserved for the courtroom and any potential proceedings before the USPTO," he said.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is pushing for a special court hearing to determine the scope of the Symantec patent. This so-called "Markman" hearing could bring a swift end to the case, either in a "prompt settlement or a stipulated judgment and appeal," Microsoft said in a status report filed last week with the court.

While Microsoft hopes to schedule the Markman hearing in April, Symantec wants to hold off discussion until the court has appointed a specialist on patent issues, Schallop said. U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenor on Wednesday asked both sides to suggest an independent expert to advise the court on patent matters.

The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, involves Symantec's Volume Manager, a hard-disk management tool it acquired as part of its takeover of Veritas.

Symantec seeks unspecified damages and an injunction barring Microsoft from using the storage technology. If granted, the injunction would put a halt on Windows Vista and the Longhorn server, two major Microsoft products slated for availability in 2007.

Microsoft's counterclaim actually strengthens Symantec's case, Schallop said. In the suit, it charges that Symantec infringes on three of its patents related to automated system recovery technology. However, Symantec contends that those patents are invalid because they are based on technology it bought years ago.

"We acquired this technology from Seagate (Technology) years ago, and we actually have the earlier filed patents to this automated system recovery technology," Schallop said. "We believe that the patents they assert against us are invalid."

Headed to court
In addition to approving the protective order to seal documents, Coughenor on Tuesday dismissed a Microsoft request to split Symantec's complaint in two. The company had sought to separate the case into one on patent infringement and another on breach of contract.

Symantec and Microsoft have tried to resolve the dispute, but were unable to, they said when the patent lawsuit was filed. The companies "agreed to disagree" and go to court. Symantec alleges that Microsoft put the disputed technology into use in Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista and the upcoming Longhorn server release.

Microsoft initially licensed the technology from Veritas in 1996 and used it in Windows 2000, Symantec said. It then used the technology to develop a feature in Windows Server 2003 that competes with Veritas' Storage Foundation for Windows and filed patent requests based on Veritas' trade secrets, Symantec charges.

The company is also taking on Microsoft outside the courtroom. Its security research arm has published three reports critiquing security in Vista. Also, Symantec has complained that a feature in the 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista stifles innovation in the security space.

No trial date has been set. Both parties are scheduled to appear in court for another status conference on Oct. 11.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 111 Talkback(s)
Hey! Thats what I was going to say!
True. Been using (mostly the free version) of AVG on hundreds of systems. Not only does it bypass all the control issues, but I have yet to have a customer who was running Mcaffee or Norton not ask ... (Read the rest)
Posted by: Chippolus Posted on: 09/01/06 You are currently: Logged In | Log out
Message has been deleted. Loverock Davidson   | 08/25/06
lovey lovey lovey really Quebec-french   | 08/25/06
hmmm , makes me wonder if he does the same to his wife , girlfriend , Intellihence   | 08/29/06
Ha Ha..You Got Deleted itanalyst   | 08/25/06
Symantec and Microsoft Boot_Agnostic   | 08/25/06
"It's the first time..." wmlundine   | 08/25/06
It doesn't count because at the time Peter Norton ... ShadeTree   | 08/25/06
Not the first time georgep_z   | 08/25/06
halt on Windows Vista and the Longhorn mighetto   | 08/25/06
Meaningless rants No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/25/06
Symantic Wants Microsoft to Purchase Them mighetto   | 08/25/06
Buy Symantec? Why? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/25/06
Crime against humanity KTLA   | 08/27/06
THIS GUY IS A MICROSOFT FRONT MAN Likewow   | 08/28/06
re: meaningless rants Wolfie2K3   | 08/25/06
Are you standalone blogs Boot_Agnostic   | 08/25/06
Take the Red Pill Now mighetto   | 08/25/06
I see you cannot even let the Mayans alone. osreinstall   | 08/25/06
WOW. White Spectral Wind mighetto   | 08/25/06
You are such a trip osreinstall   | 08/25/06
Ok, so you're saying I don't have to reply to you Boot_Agnostic   | 08/25/06
I am so proud mighetto   | 08/25/06
There will be no trademark fights as John Zern   | 08/25/06
Thats Black Hawk Down mighetto   | 08/25/06
It seems like everyone Shelendrea   | 08/25/06
Don't Worry, It Will Soon Be Over wjkahlssmd@...   | 08/26/06
To IBM Boot_Agnostic   | 08/28/06
Symantec is scared to death. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/25/06
Scared Of What? itanalyst   | 08/25/06
No_Ax_to_Grind is scared of Microsoft! B.O.F.H.   | 08/25/06
Man, you REALLY need to work on your insults... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/25/06
Truth hurts! B.O.F.H.   | 08/25/06
Message has been deleted. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
Message has been deleted. B.O.F.H.   | 08/26/06
Message has been deleted. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
Message has been deleted. B.O.F.H.   | 08/27/06
Message has been deleted. tshinder@...   | 08/27/06
O'Damn the gloves have come off . Intellihence   | 08/29/06
NOAXTOGRIND works for MS's PR Firm Likewow   | 08/28/06
But you don't speak for the masses John Zern   | 08/25/06
I think not... zkiwi   | 08/25/06
You ever use the junk Symantec puts out Michael L Hereid Sr   | 08/25/06
Well... zkiwi   | 08/26/06
Your right.... royala@...   | 08/28/06
But...But...But... Wolfie2K3   | 08/25/06
the masses Chippolus   | 08/28/06
Everything worked fine until....... Harly69   | 08/28/06
AVG Pro royala@...   | 08/28/06
Hey! Thats what I was going to say! Chippolus   | 09/01/06
What you may or may not want doesn't matter a wit. No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/25/06
Fools... Cardinal_Bill   | 08/25/06
Tell us when was the last time you wrote any software Michael L Hereid Sr   | 08/25/06
My software has nothing... Cardinal_Bill   | 08/25/06
Gee, do you buy protection for ANY OS? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
No Ax... Cardinal_Bill   | 08/26/06
Cardinal... The fact is... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/27/06
My last comment on this... Cardinal_Bill   | 08/27/06
You didn't even... zkiwi   | 08/26/06
The Little Bird Speaks Truth mighetto   | 08/25/06
Not consumable? Harly69   | 08/28/06
Thanks for that! Media-Ted@...   | 08/28/06
Yes, And Like An Idiot You Signed Up itanalyst   | 08/25/06
Tell me, what OS do you use without it? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
Without what? zkiwi   | 08/26/06
Did I ask you anything? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
Well... zkiwi   | 08/26/06
Read the entire thread No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
I already did... zkiwi   | 08/26/06
zkiwi,,, No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/27/06
I use Mandriva linux from time to time and Intellihence   | 08/29/06
Well... zkiwi   | 08/25/06
We shall see... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
No ax , exactly because you don't have one . Intellihence   | 08/29/06
"In a world without walls and fences , who needs windows and gates." Boot_Agnostic   | 08/30/06
Symantec Scared to Death tshinder@...   | 08/27/06
They should be.... royala@...   | 08/28/06
The end is near for Symantec ... George Mitchell   | 08/25/06
Looks like another anti-trust case is coming... nomorems   | 08/25/06
Not a chance... No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
Does this mean... zkiwi   | 08/26/06
You tell me, No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
Erm... zkiwi   | 08/26/06
In order for another anti-trust case to be initiated: B.O.F.H.   | 08/26/06
I agree, but it didn't help Netscape and it won't help Symantec ... George Mitchell   | 08/27/06
ON THE OTHER HAND this is NOT what this is all about! George Mitchell   | 08/27/06
good riddance terrym0021   | 08/28/06
All patents must die [nt] Omch'Ar   | 08/25/06
Come On Bitty, Why Avoid Why Vista Is Not Supporting HD itanalyst   | 08/25/06
What's to avoid? No_Ax_to_Grind   | 08/26/06
I sure hope that at least their michael_t   | 08/28/06
I didn't know. richdave   | 08/28/06
May this be resolved quickly John L. Ries   | 08/28/06
Interesting jboyd@...   | 08/28/06
Neukom is to Blame mighetto   | 08/28/06
Preston Gates & Ellis and Sealed Documents mighetto   | 08/28/06
re: Preston Gates & Ellis and Sealed Documents Harly69   | 08/28/06
The URL is correct but you need both lines mighetto   | 08/28/06
You sure CCP doesn't stand for... Monkey_MCSE   | 08/28/06
Certified Computing Profesional mighetto   | 08/28/06
Preston Gates & Ellis and Sealed Documents tealcat   | 08/28/06
Symantec Screwed up and.... royala@...   | 08/28/06
It's about time terrym0021   | 08/28/06
Symantec, and Why I Use McAfee jkratzer3   | 08/28/06
Totally Agree BBaker7958   | 08/28/06
Bill Gates is gonna get his daddy to sue you jonathan swift   | 08/28/06
The Gates Family is Out;: Microsoft might be reformed mighetto   | 08/28/06
Microsoft theft dsheetsus   | 08/28/06
Has anyone read the patent referenced? mtn.brk@...   | 08/28/06
Common Sense skeesix_1@...   | 08/28/06
Who goes down first? Media-Ted@...   | 08/28/06
Enough inertia to carry both companies for yeasr Boot_Agnostic   | 08/29/06

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement

Ultraportables

advertisement
Click Here