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?

[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:Who does /. hate more?

[iCEBaLM]

The US government for granting software patents.

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.

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...