| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Judge orders Microsoft to stop selling Word | |
|
||
| Time: 07:55 EST/12:55 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
A judge on Tuesday ordered Microsoft to stop selling Word, one of its premier products, in its current form due to patent infringement. Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to a statement released by attorneys for the plantiff, i4i. Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in March 2007 alleging that the Redmond,Wash.-based software giant violated its 1998 patent (No. 5,787,449) for a document system that eliminated the need for manually embedded formatting codes. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:24:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.214.132.42) at 8/12/2009 8:42:14 AM |
|
"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."
This will also affect OpenOffice, KOffice etc... *sigh* how long are we going to continue down this path before all software patents are thrown out and accepted as being an idiotic idea to begin with? I guess there's too much money involved in it... a patent like this can get you $277 million! |
| #2 By 26048 (71.161.0.5) at 8/12/2009 10:18:16 AM |
| Am I going to jail? |
| #3 By 113862 (74.204.153.254) at 8/12/2009 10:43:53 AM |
| Yes. |
| #4 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 8/12/2009 1:43:08 PM |
|
Don't condem all software patents because there are tons of bad ones. There are plenty that are legit.
This one is sitting on the edge of reason. This probably also applies to PPML and many other forms of generic document format types. Fast Foward 2 years when this is overturned or MS just pays them a shitton for licensing. Or both. |
| #5 By 236197 (68.225.93.235) at 8/12/2009 1:50:12 PM |
|
So, just because Microsoft is the big money target they are the only ones getting sued? And how long has Microsoft Word been around? Since before 1998 when this patent was issued, I wager, and i4i waited almost 10 years before suing. Even moreso its a judge from TEXAS, so I don't trust his judgements at all. The best thing about him is that he used to be a programmer. So, if he going to rule against Microsoft, then he better also contact the people of OpenOffice and all other Office suites that has a word processor.
If I were the judge, I'd find i4i guilty of extortion. It's not like they didn't know about Microsoft's product. So they filed a patent and then bided their time until they could hit Microsoft for the biggest money gain. So, i4i can kiss my ass. |
| #6 By 21912 (71.83.109.74) at 8/12/2009 1:53:04 PM |
|
Hmmm... I'm reminded of some recent comments by a contributor (who shall remain nameless) a couple of weeks ago where willful intellectual property infringement was directly equated with theft...
"Stealing is wrong. Period. End of story. A thief is the worst sort of human animal there is. How can thieves do what they do? Why do they not understand how destructive to their own souls it must be?" Of course, this was all said when Microsoft was the victim, but I'm sure that particular critic is equally harsh when Microsoft is the perpetrator, right? Unfortunately, he may have to find a new line of work to avoid associating with "the worst sort of human animal there is." ;-) |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/12/2009 3:05:20 PM |
|
#6: You just made my day ;)
|
| #8 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 8/12/2009 3:35:06 PM |
|
What the patent actually describes is the method for which files are stored with structure and content seperately. This would include all XML/XML schema and CSS/HTML combinations.
The key wording here is on "Custom XML" which the patent does not define or protect. If this is upheld, the impact across a great many companies will be significant. It most likely will not be and the patent will be invalidated. I still maintain that illegally downloading software and media is stealing and this is no justification for it. Similarly, if Microsoft is truly infringing here, they will pay a very steep price for it. Based upon what I have read of the case and understand about the technology, MS is not infringing. If they are guilty, they will pay and dearly so. Justice will have been served. What I find sad is that people can celebrate their own theft and illegal downloads and gloat when a very broad patent is aimed so directly. |
| #9 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 8/12/2009 3:41:29 PM |
|
#6 Equating use a hacked version of software to this is childish. For proof see #7
Frankly the Patent office probably had its head spin as they were reading this patent document. Which is what happens with many of these docs the concept of embedding formating characteristics in a document in a space saving way may sound awe inspiring to some government bro but was prevelant all over the joint in some way shape or form even back then. And the reason the went after MS first was to get the biggest settlement... and armed with this decision (assuming it stands) they can easily strong arm license fees from anybody they please. Personally I doubt this will last simpley because it fails to show novelty. However, the patent office has been slow to pickup on this stuff tbh. |
| #10 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 8/12/2009 7:50:27 PM |
|
"Don't condem all software patents because there are tons of bad ones. There are plenty that are legit"
You may be of that opinion and that's fine, but I completely disagree. At least 90% of granted software patents are complete crap. I can understand if the creator of XML patented it but given that XML is an extensible markup language then how it's used and where it's used should not be patentable. Otherwise you get idiotic patents like this and other brilliant ones like using XML in an application on a mobile - whoopty doo! Ys there are a few valid software patents but they are far and few between and currently being swallowed up in a sea of crap. The patent system is there to provide a temporary monopoly for the creator/innovator but when it comes to software patents all it's doing is providing an avenue for patent trolls to sit and wait until pay day. "Fast Foward 2 years when this is overturned or MS just pays them a shitton for licensing." Is this how software patents should work? #5 "So, just because Microsoft is the big money target they are the only ones getting sued?" Yes. "And how long has Microsoft Word been around?" This is completely irrelevant given that the patent in question regards using Custom XML for manipulating the content and structure of a document. Word did not have XML in 1998! "Even more so its a judge from TEXAS, so I don't trust his judgements at all." lol - ok then :) "So they filed a patent and then bided their time until they could hit Microsoft for the biggest money gain." Welcome to the world of software patents :) Take a seat and enjoy the ride... this is not the first nor the last time we'll hear about the complete lunacy of software patents. The only difference is that this time the Microsoft drones will come out in force against this and then turn around and be hypocrites if one of Microsoft's intellectual properties is infringed. Nothing new to see here :) #6 lol - touche! Good luck getting him to put Microsoft to the same #8 "I still maintain that illegally downloading software and media is stealing and this is no justification for it." You can redefine the English language as much as you like for the purposes of your argument. It doesn't change the fact that it's copyright infringement. It doesn't make it right but it definitely doesn't make it stealing. "Justice will have been served." This is where you and I differ - actually what am I saying... we differ just about everywhere! Justice won't have been served regardless of whether this is Microsoft, IBM, Google, Apple or Mrs Wilson that's involved... software patents are a joke and vague broad software patents like this are beyond a joke which is what the USPTO is! #9 "Equating use a hacked version of software to this is childish." One is copyright infringement, the other is intellectual property infringement - they're not that different! Let's call a spade a spade shall we. |
| #11 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 8/12/2009 11:05:47 PM |
| I'm guessing on the customer side this will ultimately increase the cost. |
| #12 By 236197 (68.225.93.235) at 8/13/2009 4:12:42 AM |
|
#10 Good point. Not sure why I bothered mentioning Word's age. The anger in me made it hard to think straight. Anyway, I'm well familiar with the lunacy of software patents and the Microsoft sues based on them too. My problem is more with the amount of time they waited. It's not some small product that few people know about. The world has known about Word's XML inclusion since at least 2006 (probably longer). And they waited till after the launch to do anything about it. They KNEW about it long before they decided to sue. And I find it suspicious that they waited until after its official launch. I would have filed the suit earlier on to prevent the problematic code from being inserted in the first place.
Anywho, Microsoft will get it overturned because they have a patent that is more specific about their use of XML code. Which would obviously violate nothing. |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 8/13/2009 8:31:22 AM |
| If MS does get this overturned, does this open the potential of a lost revenue counter suit based on the initial frivolous suit? Those damages could put i4i in the crapper. |
| #14 By 23443 (169.200.80.16) at 8/13/2009 1:04:35 PM |
|
#13,
Not in the crapper, in Redmond. :) TD |
| #15 By 21912 (71.83.109.74) at 8/13/2009 3:15:30 PM |
|
Maybe a little more info will illuminate this situation further. i4i isn't some fly-by-night company lying in wait for a big lawsuit payoff. They applied for this patent in 1994, and it was finally awarded in 1998. One of i4i's early customers for this technology was the U.S. Patent office itself, in the process of overhauling their website and patent submissions process in 2001. i4i also has a list of customers that reads like a Who's Who of pharmaceutical companies, so it's clear that their primary business plan doesn't revolve around litigation.
According to i4i, several years ago it approached Microsoft with a breakthrough product in data processing, only to be spurned and to see its technology show up later in versions of Microsoft Word. Whether or not that's true, these allegations do not constitute brand new behavior for Microsoft. The only question is, did they do it again? I don't claim to have an informed legal opinion on whether or not Microsoft Word actually infringes on the XML patent in question, but the jury was convinced, and felt that the evidence showed the infringement to be willful. Not only did the judge agree with the jury, denying Microsoft's motion to set aside the verdict, but he assessed an additional $40M as the price Microsoft should pay for the willfulness of their infringement. Please don't contrue these clarifications as any defense of a patent system that I think is badly broken, not only regarding software patents but also patents on business methods. People around the world must be asking, "What the hell are those Americans thinking?" I don't have a really good answer to that. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 325 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:24:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
