Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute
cwolfsheep writes "According to CNet, Microsoft has lost a patent dispute with a developer involving the company's Excel and Access product lines; specifically how they interact via spreadsheets. Carlos Armando Amado had filed a patent in 1994: the dispute covers Microsoft's products from March 1997 to July 2003. Office 2003 users will need to upgrade to Service Pack 2; Office XP users will need to apply a patch."
Um, no thanks.
The article should say that Microsoft had to release said patch. Users of Microsoft products are under no obligation to actually apply the patch and remove functionality.
This story doesn't exactly mention what functionality the patch removes. But there is another article about it here with a bit more information:
_ pays_excel_man/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/07/microsoft
"In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database using a single spreadsheet. He said he tried to sell this technology to Microsoft in 1992 but they turned him down. According to Amado, Microsoft started including his software in their releases between 1995 and 2002."
We received an email from Microsoft licensing last week that addresses this issue.
f ault.aspx.
Here's the text:
Background:
It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office XP Professional and Microsoft Access 2002 infringe a third-party patent. As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced.
Action required:
As a result of the above ruling, you are required to:
Install Microsoft Office 2003 Service Pack 2 (Office 2003 SP2) for all your future deployments of Office Professional Edition 2003 and Office Access 2003, Install the Microsoft Office XP Service Pack 3 Patch (Office XP SP3 Patch) for all your future deployments of Office XP Professional and Access 2002
Action requested:
To keep your current systems in alignment with your future deployments of these products, Microsoft is requesting that you also update all your current Office Professional Edition 2003 and Office Access 2003 installations with Office 2003 SP2, and Office XP Professional and Access 2002 installations with the Office XP SP3 Patch.
How do I do this?:
You can obtain both Office 2003 SP2 and the Office XP SP3 Patch by going to the website listed below and downloading it directly, or by contacting your reseller.
Please visit our site at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officeupdate/de
Sincerely,
Microsoft Licensing, GP This makes it seem like we are being forced to upgrade to maintain licensing.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
Never mind, went deeper and answered my own question:
"Microsoft has released an update for Microsoft Access 2002. This update removes the functionality in Access 2002 that lets users add new data to or edit existing data in a linked Microsoft Excel worksheet."
Two words: Hell no. That's not a "small" part of the market segment, IMO.
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
You are incorrect. It is your responsibility to make sure that you are not using non-infringing code. From the Microsoft EULA:
"THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT."
The key word in there is "non-infringement." You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim, should such a claim exist. Microsoft will not indemnify you.
This is a common negotiation point during software licensing, but Microsoft is very historically consistent in the way that it phrases this limitation of warranty.
And yes, I do negotiate IP licenses for a living...
Probably not, if the patent is: "In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database using a single spreadsheet."
Then OOO isn't affected as its program's are completely different.
The end users are still indemnified. They're not getting sued. Microsoft never said THEY were indemnified. There's an article here that covers some recent changes to the indemnity clause that business licensees get. I dunno if that extends to people with individual licenses, though.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I thought MS offered indemnification. Guess I was confused. Guess that was just server software. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /topics/ipi.mspx
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
He was originally asking $500 million, a sum that I would consider "tons of $$$". Microsoft claims that they had been working in-house on the capability to add the linking since 1989, and Mr Amado approached them with a working product in 1992. From other research, it appears that the "trick" in question is to link an Excel document from Access in read/write mode as an in-line table, something we all take for granted in the modern Office versions.
Microsoft said no thanks at the time, and released their in-house work in 1995 with the release of Office95. The jury decided that there wasn't sufficent evidence that Microsoft was in the clear, so they settled for $9 million and an agreement to cease using the technology.
I found two between 1976 to present, neither of which seem on the face of it to be relevant. Anyone know the actual patent in question?
News reports should include such basic info so that
readers can do some of their own analysis if they so choose.
This is what I found at http://patft.uspto.gov/:
1. 5,701,400 Method and apparatus for applying if-then-else rules to data sets in a relational data base and generating from the results of application of said rules a database of diagnostics linked to said data sets to aid executive analysis of financial data
2. 5,537,590 Apparatus for applying analysis rules to data sets in a relational database to generate a database of diagnostic records linked to the data sets
Any genuine indemnification would mean that end users could refuse to install the patch and Microsoft would accept liability for any lawsuits that might occur.
Indemnification means they're going to lengths to protect their customers as far as legally possible. But if you choose to use their product in an illegal manner, why should you expect to be protected?
Microsoft is paying out $8.9 million to this guy for previous infringement, they're providing a patch, and no one is being sued beyond Microsoft.
Presumably their clients who use the products in the legal-n-licensed are still indemnified. Please have a valid point when you Microsoft-bash or you lose credibility.
feh.