Microsoft Word Banned in US

[flamesfan6]

http://business.rediff.com/report/20...word-in-us.htm

Canadian company claimed copyright infringement

This applies to XML (word 2007)

[Bobblehead]

Wow. Of course Microsoft will appeal and be allowed to continue selling while under appeal, but still - wow.

And it is actually Patent infringement.

It is kind of a murky topic, but if software had been governed by copyright (as it is in much of the world) then this case may not have seen the light of day.

[Hack&Lube]

LOL, Patent Squatters win again!

$287 million jackpot!


Basically a patent troll goes and files a totally abstract patent for future technology. When somebody comes along and does the hard of work of actually inventing it and building it, the patent troll strikes.

This is what the patent says:

Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other


Abstract
A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.

That's like me patenting:

"A system and method for placing paties of ground beef between two pieces of bread and delivering it to customers."

Then I sue every burger joint in the biz!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

LOL, Patent Squatters win again!

$287 million jackpot!


Basically a patent troll goes and files a totally abstract patent for future technology. When somebody comes along and does the hard of work of actually inventing it and building it, the patent troll strikes.

Where do you get that they are "patent squatters?" Looking at their web site, it looks to me that they build document collaboration software. In fact, one of their products is an XML editing plugin for Word. Were they not allowed to patent something they've already been doing?

Looking at screen shots of their products, they've definitely been around since before Office 97 so it's not like they just thought this XML stuff up yesterday after it's already been around.


Actually, here's their "About" blurb:

i4i is a world leader in the design and development of collaborative content solutions and technologies. Founded in 1993 by Michel Vulpe, the Company has a proven record of accomplishment and innovation. With its partners, i4i has successfully developed and deployed collaborative content solutions to customers in industry and government around the world.

Edit: I just think it's not exactly coincidental that MS always finds themselves in these lawsuits. Either they just don't care, or their "rights holders" research team is the worst on the planet.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Edit: I just think it's not exactly coincidental that MS always finds themselves in these lawsuits. Either they just don't care, or their "rights holders" research team is the worst on the planet.

It's not just Microsoft, it happens to every large corporation that small obscure ones go after them for patent infringement money. RIM was dealing with this just a year or two ago.

The rumblings are that this will be easily overturned in the Supreme Court, the the judge didn't know squat about computers. XML and Metacodes are basically used in everything

XML is a fee-free open standard created by the XML Group in the mid 90s, not i4i. It's used in hundreds of things including RSS, Atom, and XHTML. XML dialects have become the default file format for a number of office-productivity tools, including Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, AbiWord, and Apple's iWork. i4i basically patented the use of any Metacodes in a document which is a rough abstract concept but Google uses metacodes, Apple uses metacodes, everybody does. They are going after Microsoft specifically for money when they could also go after everyone else also.

[FanIn80]

Oh yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that i4i created XML, I was just saying that they've been using it for their document collaboration software for a while. Longer than it's been in Word anyway.

When I think of "squatters" I think of a guy registering coke.com and then sitting on his ass waiting for Coke to pay him a million dollars for it.

[Bobblehead]

I've read a few articles about companies run by patent lawyers and their whole method of business is to look for struggling/failing software companies that have patents, buy those companies, fold the patents into another company and then search for violations of those patents. Their only source of income is from licensing or litigation.

While I give them credit for finding an interesting methodology, their strong arm tactics haven't made them any friends.

[You Need a Thneed]

Wouldn't it have to be proved that Microsoft direct copied this other companies work? A patent doesn't stop someone else from doing their own research and developing their own software that does exactly the same thing.

The developers at microsoft probably had no clue that this other company even existed, why would Microsoft copy their work?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Wouldn't it have to be proved that Microsoft direct copied this other companies work? A patent doesn't stop someone else from doing their own research and developing their own software that does exactly the same thing.

The developers at microsoft probably had no clue that this other company even existed, why would Microsoft copy their work?

A patent will stop you from creating something that does the same thing in the same way.

So companies are trying to write their patents so broad that it prevents anyone from doing the same thing (at least without giving them a cut via licensing). But according to the rules, patents are supposed to be specific or it will be declined. But there is such a backlog in the patent office(patent pending) that they can't do a thorough evaluation of all the patents that are submitted, so then you get things like this lawsuit.

There are a couple of thing Microsoft will now do (at least based on how many of these things seem to go). They will appeal the decision saying the patent is too broad, and even if it isn't too broad that they don't fall under it for some reason that hasn't already been brought up. They will drag this as long as they can with the hope that either prior art will be found (which means this isn't the first person so they can't hold the patent), that they will find a hole to get the case thrown out, or that they will bleed the other company so much the other company will either quit (unlikely) or come to some sort of an agreement (which will be sealed by the decision and not binding on any other party or litigant).

[Hack&Lube]

In these cases, usually the small fry company sticks it out hoping that the big company will do a cash settlement instead of fighting it to the bitter end as the bigger company (and thusly why they go after them) would rather not go through the hassle.

[Bobblehead]

Actually, reading a bit more, it seems like the lawsuit may be done deal. Damage amounts have already been set, this was simply a follow injunction that was promised when the final ruling was made.

That ruling, which came in the wake of a jury trial, set damages at $240 million and tacked on another $37 million of interest, and it noted that a separate injunction would eventually be issued. That injunction was handed down yesterday, and it bars Microsoft from selling any form of Word that reads the formatting information out of a .DOCX or .DOCM file.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...pping-word.ars

And other than fighting the injunction, I'm not sure MS has any leg to stand on as far as getting the original ruling settled on since:

Ironically, the patent in question covers a method of separating formatting information from runs of text when documents are written to files—something Microsoft itself received a patent for just this week. Unfortunately, the folks in Redmond filed theirs six months behind the competition.

[calculoso]

How can MS get a patent for something that was already patented? Doesn't make sense.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by calculoso

How can MS get a patent for something that was already patented? Doesn't make sense.

The patent office is years and years behind in backlogged, it's an antiquated system with people who don't really understand what's going on and they are too liberal about patents.

Most things are actually patent pending and you can keep filing stuff if the patent is not issued. They just filed their patent.

[Bobblehead]

Yeah, consider i4i filed for their patent in June 1994, Microsoft filed in December 1994, i4i received their patent in 1998, Microsoft received their patent THIS WEEK.

So a 6 month difference in filing. an 11 year difference in being granted.

The US patent system is broken. They can't do the research required to look for prior art or overlapping claims, at least without falling behind even further than they already are.

[yads]

I can't believe this thread has gone this long with out this.



"Buy him out boys"

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by yads

I can't believe this thread has gone this long with out this.



"Buy him out boys"

They've got $277 Million out of Microsoft and Microsoft hasn't even agreed to licencing terms yet so there is more to come there. Now they are free to try going after other products that use a similar technique with XML (one name mentioned was Sun/Oracle - cha ching) so it will be a VERY expensive buy out at this point.

[llama64]

Software patents are stifling the industry as far as I've seen. I can't imagine having an idea, spending thousands upon thousands on legal fees to do due diligence only to find out 10 years later that some other company was able to score a patent on an "idea" two years before you.

Patents just don't work with software. The ones being enforced these days are just too broad - why would anyone want to risk a patent infringement trying to bring new software to market when other less risky ventures exist?

I have little sympathy for Microsoft since they just got a taste of their own medicine here, but no one can deny the patent system in the States isn't borked.