Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Loses Office Patent Dispute

Posted by Zonk on from the lesson-is-not-to-lose-a-lawsuit-if-you're-a-big-target dept.

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. What about OO.org? by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is OpenOffice affected by this?

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  2. Patching to Remove Functionality by slashbob22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Whose problem is this? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You are taking all legal liability for the Microsoft product infringing any patent or copyright claim
    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. And the EULA click-thru doesn't count - its too late to add terms to an agreement after the sale.
    And yes, I do negotiate IP licenses for a living...
    ... then you should know better. You can't unilaterally change the deal after its been concluded. Once someone bought it, that's it. They are under no obligation to anything more than they already agreed to.

    ... 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".

    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.

    Again, not the buyers problem. Like all contracts, there are 3 important rules:

    1. get it in writing
    2. get it in writing
    3. get it in writing
    ... I don't think Microsoft can show a copy of ANYONE's signature on a click-through EULA. Let them tell it to the judge how "oh, e added these conditions AFTER they bought the software, and we don't have a copy of their agreeing to them, but they MUST have ..."

    That'll go over real well, especially since both common law and consumer protection legislation requires you to warrant what you sell.

  4. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by jrp2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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
  5. Why doesn't MS just license it and make it go away by HighOrbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.