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."
I found this odd: "Although existing customers can keep using older versions on current machines, any new installations of Office 2003 will require Service Pack 2, released by Microsoft in September. Office XP will need to be put into use with a special patch applied."
They're making it sound like you won't even be able to use new installs of those versions. Although, I guess with product activation, that may be exactly what they mean...
Is OpenOffice affected by this?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
This sounds like it is becoming Microsoft's new patching practice. First patch Tuesday, which works great until a zero day issue occurs. Now we have blackhole patches; these suck functionality out of your product (both with the Xbox 360 and now office). I for one would like to thank Microsoft for removing functionality I use - as opposed to the other 90% of functions in your Office software which are bloatware and are rarely used.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Microsoft won't release SP3 but forces us to patch Office? :-/
It's the only way the little guy can win against those who would use their stuff w/o asking.
Kevin
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I am of your opinion. It should be Microsoft's responsability to license the patient and make it good. When I bought the license to use their product, I was licensing it in good faith. Frankly, I would love to return the product and get my money back claiming they they have violated their licensing agreement by reducing functionality. In fact, I wonder if Microsoft will allow me to return the product based on the claim that I can no longer use the product legally that I purchased. If Microsoft does not provide a legal way to provide that same functionality, with the same performance, then they are changing the terms of the licensing agreement in an illegal way. I gave them money in return for the rights to use their product. Now because they broke the law, they are saying I can't use that product. So another question I have is that if the patent is stolen, and illegally used, then technically, is the licensing agreement void? IANAL, but my understanding is any agreement reached where one of the terms is illegal makes the entire agreement null and void. So, in my opinion, it should be Microsoft's duty and obligiation to provide the functionality legally. I think I will be calling Microsoft today...
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
... or are you going to argue that a EULA that says "Failure to comply with these conditions, which you didn't know about prior to sale, will result in friggin' sharks with lasers strapped to their heads paying you and yours a visit".
Again, not the buyers problem. Like all contracts, there are 3 important rules:That'll go over real well, especially since both common law and consumer protection legislation requires you to warrant what you sell.
"I applaud Microsoft for not doing what I would have done in this situation: pull a Google and ignore the court's demand. They are actually providing patches & updates to solve the problem. I wouldn't be so accomidating."
I do not applaud them at all. The "correct" thing to do here would be to license the patent and spare their customers from having to patch their code.
Maybe they tried and the patent holder was not reasonable, but I imagine had they thrown the guy a few more bucks (perhaps a nice round US$10 million) they could have just solved the problem and spared their customers a lot of stress and expense.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
Microsoft has a lot of cash to burn. And what better way to spend that cash than to lose a few software patent disputes? The rewards are clear:
1. FUD in the marketplace concerning patents, giving CIOs worry about using open/free software.
2. A way to fund patent trolls who *may* turn their attention to open/free software (if they perceive money to be made from folks like Sun/OpenOffice.)
3. Precidents set on absurd patents whose licensing costs prohibit free softwar from entering a domain.
I'm not saying this particular example is applicable, but losing a few key patent cases may actually help more than harm Microsoft.
Ok, I just don't understand, unless it is pure cheapness and greed. Why doesn't MS just pay the man $1 per shipped license. The marginal cost to press the cd and license the software is basically nill. It's not like they don't make a basically 100% profit on each license already. So surely they can cough up $1 out of the $370 that I paid them for my license. But Nooooo, they want to remove the functionality instead of licensing it. Come on MS, just fork over the cash (its basically chump change to you) and let the users keep the functionality.
The "Selden Patent" was bogus, and the courts ruled that way. So, yeah, only a moron would cite a case that disproves their point ...
They didn't "throw out the case" - the judge RULED.
Next, on the patent infringement bit in TFA - I am not liable for what other people do. Again, taking the original poster's example - a store sells me a radio, that later turns out to be stolen. The original owner claims it back, and I claim my money back from the vendor. Same with software - it doesn't matter what they put in an EULA that I never signed and didn't see until after I buy the software - the VENDOR is liable, not me.
Microsoft found this out the hard way in the Timeline case, where they had two choices - cough up to Timeline, or have Timeline sue their customers, and their customers sue Microsoft. And the suit against Microsoft would have been an easy class-action slam dunk. Most jurisdictions have decent consumer protection laws.
No - the VENDOR is responsible, as well as for any associated costs. I'd say everyone bill Microsoft for the time spent patching this and testing it. Again, I am not responsible for what 3rd parties do. Like all other hidden defects, the VENDOR is liable for all the associated costs. So, unless they pointed out beforehand the specific infringement, they are liable. And I can claim back any time lost - not that I would - I never used office (Wordperfect was always much better, and a better deal, and I don't use Wincrack.)So, to summarize:
'Microsoft found this out the hard way in the Timeline case, where they had two choices - cough up to Timeline, or have Timeline sue their customers, and their customers sue Microsoft'
Youve just backed up my point. Timeline can sue the MS customers because the MS customers are liable. Whether the customers can sue MS afterwards or not is another case entirely. Fact is they are breaking the law by using the software and that means they can be punished for it.
'No - the VENDOR is responsible, as well as for any associated costs. I'd say everyone bill Microsoft for the time spent patching this and testing it.'
The vendor is responsible for solving the problems it has, and if they want to keep selling the product they have to show that they are dealing with the issue, but that doesnt take away the fact that you are responsible for dealing with your particular piece of now illegal software.
'Like all other hidden defects, the VENDOR is liable for all the associated costs. So, unless they pointed out beforehand the specific infringement, they are liable.'
That isnt removing your liability. Its simply allowing you to place it back in to the vendors hands. The fact that you _have_ to place it in to the vendors hands or sort it out in some other way is proof that you are currently in breach of the law and therefore you are liable for it. If you werent liable, you could continue using the software illegal or not. That clearly isnt the case.
Whether you can use the vendor as a means of sorting out whats wrong is irrelevant if you dont sort it out youll still get the software confiscated and potentially get sued by the original patent holder if you are caught using it.
In other words you are legally obligated to return, patch or dispose of the software. I believe that is the definition of being liable.
The Timeline case as to the 3rd-party liability was settled out of court, so until a judge rules, it is the vendor's responsibility, not the purchasers'. This was after Microsoft lost in the direct lawsuit.
Now as regards 3rd-party liablity - where I live I am NOT responsible. A lot of other jurisdictions have the same clauses - the vendor AUTOMATICALLY is liable. That's why most licenses have a severability provision for any clause that infracts local law. Timeline could have TRIED to sue me, for example, but they are prevented by statute from succeeding, so the case would never be heard. They simply lack a standing to sue me.