October Term 2006 · Docket 05-1056
Does shipping software code abroad violate U.S. patent law?
Microsoft and AT&T dispute whether sending digital code overseas counts as exporting components.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Microsoft's counsel argued that patent law protects against making components in the U.S.
AT&T's counsel argued that Microsoft supplies the precise machine-readable sequence of commands.
Justice Kennedy asked if the disk, not the information, is the component.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Microsoft argues that digital code is not a physical component. AT&T argues that the code itself is the critical component.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 21, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Microsoft wants the Court to rule that digital code is not a component.
AT&T wants the Court to rule that digital code is a component.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What each side says
Microsoft argues that Section 271(f) covers only physical parts shipped abroad.
AT&T argues that the object code is the critical component sent from the U.S.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if precedent exists for the parties' stipulation.
Justice Scalia asked if a bet on a court outcome creates standing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of U.S. patent law for digital products. It determines whether companies can avoid liability by sending code abroad. The outcome shapes global software distribution and patent enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 33-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 33-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 9-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 3-39 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 3-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.