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."

Comments

Whose problem is this?

[lukewarmfusion]

Microsoft violated the patent, not me. I bought a copy of the software as it was - and if they have to alter it because they made a mistake then that's their problem. I should not be required to change the software in order to help them cover.

Are you required to install security patches? Many sysadmins have a wait-and-see approach to major updates for good reason. Is this any different?

Am I using infringing code? Yes. Is it my responsibility to ensure that I'm not? I don't believe so. Not only is this software that I've licensed from Microsoft, but it's not like I have the option of reviewing the source code.

I'm curious if there's a precedent regarding this kind of situation.

Re:Whose problem is this?

[jbolden]

You have now been notified that you are taking action to violate a patent. Microsoft office as sold and supported by Microsoft does not violate that patent. Hence your actions are a deliberate patent violation.

Re:Whose problem is this?

[Qzukk]

What rock have you been sitting under? It doesn't matter who promised you what or sold you which widget, if it infringed on the patent before you owned it, it still infringes on the patent. While the patent holder probably won't bother hunting you down, you'd best keep an eye open for the subpoena of microsoft's product registration database, just in case.

Don't think just because you bought it from somewhere else that you're in the clear (think stolen property. Now think stolen intellectual property). Suing the customers has been tried before back when Ford broke into the automobile scene. It only backfired because it made the other automobile makers unpopular. What does this inventor sell that can be boycotted?

Re:Whose problem is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. Try buying a stolen radio sometime, even if you had no idea it was stolen, you might not go to jail but you don't get to keep it when the cops show up. Now, you've bought some "stolen" IP.

Suing the customers for patent infringement isn't a new thing. Back around 1900 when Ford started selling cheap cars, one of his competitors sued people who bought cars from Ford. Reading around the various links posted by others here, I see that Microsoft's customers have been sued before, though in that case Microsoft defended them and won. In this case, Microsoft's already lost, so I wouldn't count on their defense meaning much.

Re:Whose problem is this?

[tomhudson]

Don't be a moron. (Oh, right - telling THAT to an AC)

Suing the customers for patent infringement isn't a new thing. Back around 1900 when Ford started selling cheap cars, one of his competitors sued people who bought cars from Ford.

Your Ford example sucks. The competitors lost their suit. Ford continued to sell cars.
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles /FE18101F937B9D8386256DBF00739550

n 1903, when Henry Ford launched the Ford Motor Company, his third attempt at making cars, automobiles were high-priced, custom-made playthings for the rich. What's more, the major manufacturers had figured out a way to keep it that way. They had acquired a strategic property right very much like the recording industry's copyrights on recorded songs. It was called the Selden Patent and it gave its owners the exclusive right to sell a very basic invention: self-propelled vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. Many people in the car business thought this patent was an outrage - much as some online retailers today are angry that Amazon.com received a patent on its "One-Click" checkout system. But the U.S. Patent Office had issued the Selden Patent and a group of powerful incumbents had purchased it and formed an association to enforce it. Litigation, then as now, was very expensive - especially for start-up companies with limited working capital. Nearly every car company fell into line to pay royalties to the Association for the privilege of making and selling cars.

Except Henry Ford. The association did not want another competitor in Detroit and it did not like his idea of driving prices down to where average people could afford a car. So it refused to license him. For Ford, it was either exit the industry or fight the Selden Patent in court. He decided to raise a legal war chest and fight the incumbents. The litigation lasted from 1903 until 1911 and along the way, the association launched hundreds of lawsuits against Ford's customers to scare them away from his showrooms for buying "unlicensed vehicles."

Most ordinary people of Ford's era had been content to stand by and watch the automobile makers slug it out over the Selden Patent. It was just an industry cat fight. But when the big "money men" started suing ordinary people who were just trying to buy a cheap car, public sympathy shifted against the incumbents. People rallied to Ford's side against the bullies. Editorials weighed in against the industry's heavy-handed lawsuits, and Ford helped his own case by purchasing litigation insurance for his customers. By the time the patent litigation was over - Ford won on appeal in 1911 when the court ruled that the Selden Patent covered only cars made with a special type of engine nobody was using anymore - Ford was a hero, and the largest car manufacturer in America.

At lest provide a relevant example, or I'll have to sic the sharks with friggin' lasers strapped to their heads on you.

Re:Whose problem is this?

[xtieburn]

Well bravo on the moron remark, it truly represents your intellectual superiority.

His example was fine. You went through the trouble of finding and pasting the paragraphs saying that the legal cases were shot down, while not actually realising that that isnt the point.

The legal cases were valid even if they were eventually thrown out and this is whats important. The company was fully capable of suing the customers for _exactly_ the same crime you claimed they couldnt in your long post. Had Ford lost the case every person that was sued would have lost it as well.

Oh look Microsoft _has_ lost the case that means that every person has also lost it as well. They are all required by law to ensure that they are not in breach of that patent.

As the AC who you decided was a moron pointed out. If you buy stolen goods, even if you new nothing about the fact it was stolen. The goods will still be taken away from you.

Meanwhile your main post is deeply flawed.
'I call BS on that. I don't take any legal liability unless enter into a contract stating that I accept such potential liabiity BEFORE the sale.'

This isnt about any contract youve signed or the EULA, taking the stolen example again. Whether you sign a contract saying you take liability for the theft or not is irrelevant itll still be confiscated. No company, infact no one can just write up a contract that says you will or wont be liable if the product you have is breaking the law, because, well, its breaking the law...

Itd be like complaining about going to jail for killing someone because they hadnt gotten you to sign a contract saying you couldnt, before you commited the crime.

Seeing as your entire post and point is based around this your entire post is also a load of trash. The nice and capitalised part of the EULA isnt a contract for you to argue over, its a warning of the fact that if such a thing happens _you_ are liable according to the law.

Nor is this a case of MS changing the contract after you've got the software. It was always illegal for you to run software that breaks the patent laws. MS dont choose whether the people using illegal software are liable or not.

The fact is if anything that you own becomes illegal then you are responsible for disposing of it or updating it so that it is not illegal anymore. You cant just say you werent informed about it when you bought it, you cant blame it on the company. (Well you can but it wont make your software any less illegal.) You cant sign away the illegal nature of what you're using.
You have to sort it out yourself.

Now if you decide the way to sort it out is to return it to MS, and ask for a full refund because you can no longer use it with the patch in place... Well thats a whole different kettle of fish.

You'd think...

[Pedrito]

that this would help show to them how stupid the idea of software patents are. But I suspect this won't change the MS perspective on software patents.

I've never been to Guatemala, but I suspect the $8.9 million that Amado won will go far...

I wish..

[Anonymous Coward]

They would release important patches as fast as this one. But I guess this problem would harm their money.

Re:Who does /. hate more?

[iCEBaLM]

The US government for granting software patents.

Interesting MS spin

[dpille]

"As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."
 
What about a "a verdict last year by a jury" makes the code anything but_actually_ infringing instead of _allegedly_?

Prior art

[jbolden]

It seems to me that Microsoft did a bad job in defending this case. Microsoft claims (and for the purpose of argument lets assume the claim is true) that they had a working exchange between Excel and Access prior to 1990. Further you clearly saw similar types of echanges with other products (Paradox and QuatroPro, Lotus 1-2-3 and db2, etc...).

Obviously they lost I'm curious as to why though. I think this means that something like:

1) The layoffs have gotten to to the point that Microsoft can no longer prove stuff about its own code base.

2) They had committed a more serious violation (anti trust, copyright...) and so couldn't go into details.

3) They didn't take the case seriously.

Does anyone have any insight as to why they lost?

Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they payed $8.9 million in damages for infringing the patent, not for a patent license. If they continue to infringe, they can get sued all over for more damages.

Now, what was that Microsoft was saying?

[mrchaotica]

Something about how commercial software was superior to Free Software because it indemnified users against patent infringment?

So much for that argument!

Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying?

[mrchaotica]

However, end users are being (more or less) forced to install a patch that removes the patented technology. 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.

Now, is Microsoft doing that, or is the whole "indemnification" thing a big pile of horse shit?>

Given this post, it apparently is.

Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying?

[mrchaotica]

But forcing the user to install a patch that reduces functionality is not indemnification!

Indemnification should mean accepting liability for any patent infringment claims leveled against the user for continuing to use the software as-is.

I submitted the story the last time...

[Spy der Mann]

Microsoft found guilty of patent infringement.

Here are the relevant links:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/18/microsoft_ court_excel/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/07/microsoft_ pays_excel_man/

The story goes like this:

Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent in 1990 for software which lets users move data between Excel to Access via a spreadsheet. He tried to sell it to Microsoft two years later, but they rejected it. Then it turns out that they DID use his software behind his back, without paying him a dime.

This is not like the EOLAS plugin patent. This is an idea that Microsoft STOLE and got rich with. Microsoft is the one to blame, not Carlos Amado. (They could as well have licensed his technology or simply use an alternative, but did they?)

Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality!

[Zocalo]

You think that you will have much of a choice? Since Microsoft's patch mechanism supports pre-requisites so that one patch can require another, what's the bet that all future Office patches will require that the patent compliance patch be installed first? That leaves you the rhetorical question of which is going to provide the lesser pain to a PC with Office installed; leaving a feature you possibly never used anyway in place, or being vulnerable to the latest exploit. Good luck if you are opting for the latter, that's all I can say.

My guess is that Microsoft will throw its customers a bone by making the patch optional for a month or two and then start requiring it for all subsequent Office patches. Come the first serious exploit after that, and you'd better not be reliant on the Access-Excel data connectivity that's being removed unless you are really sure of your anti-virus and other network security systems.

Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality!

[drakaan]

And how about this:

"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," Microsoft said in an e-mail to customers. "As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."

Allegedly? No...not allegedly, definitively. It went to court, and the plaintiff was able to prove infringement. It's not alleged, it's legally proven fact. Talk about weasel-words...

Re:This is why I think patents are good

[db32]

That is exactly how patents are supposed to protect the inventor. However...it isn't the inventor that is abusing the system, its the patentor. Patenting something and then never making it, waiting for someone else to put the work and money into making it real, and then filing lawsuits. Patenting something that shouldn't be patented. Betamax vs VHS made sense and to me was decided correctly, however, by the way things are going now, it would be a patent lawsuit just for making a device that could play video on a TV screen regardless of it using any similar technolgy to do it.

Re:Apply this patch to maintain licensing!

[skiman1979]

Sounds to me like Microsoft is requiring all NEW deployments of the affected applications to use the new upgraded/patched version, but they are only requesting that you patch your existing installations. Seems patching existing installs is not required by Microsoft.

Software patents suck

[Intangion]

Software patents ruin inovation

whats next, patenting linked lists? for loops?
you cant write ANYTHING anymore without using someone elses patents how is bring all development to a screeching halt. or tieing up developers in courts for the rest of their existance supposed to help inovation?

i dont even like microsoft but i think everyone sueing them for things they arent even doing wrong is terrible for the whole industry

Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality!

[ivan256]

Wouldn't it have been 'morally right' for Microsoft to offer a refund as an option to customers using this feature that they paid for?

Is it morally right for this third party to require microsoft to remove this feature when they don't offer a product with similar functionality? Is it moral to use patent law to deny technology to society?

I find it difficult to consider applying this patch to be the moral thing to do when taken in the context of the situation.