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."

5 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Whose problem is this? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Who does /. hate more? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US government for granting software patents.

  3. Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    So much for that argument!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  5. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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...

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law