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."

61 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Apply this patch to remove functionality! by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Um, no thanks.

    The article should say that Microsoft had to release said patch. Users of Microsoft products are under no obligation to actually apply the patch and remove functionality.

    1. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Users of Microsoft products are under no obligation to actually apply the patch and remove functionality.

      Actually, I think you might be under just such an obligation. You're still using the patented technology without a licence.

      Never underestimate the perversity of patent law.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Informative

      I applaud Microsoft for not doing what I would have done in this situation: pull a Google and ignore the court's demand.

      Two different things. Allow me to analogize with Law and Order:

      The google issue is Detective Briscoe going up to your home and saying "Someone said you sell crack here. Mind if I take a look around?" You have every right to refuse.

      The microsoft issue is Detective Briscoe going up to your home and saying "I found this videotape of you selling crack here. Here's my search warrant. I'll let myself in, thanks."

      In other words, a request and a ruling from the court are opposite ends of the judicial process.

    3. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, I think you might be under just such an obligation.

      Technically, you're right, but practically nobody is ever going to come and get you. Besides, the courts issue decisions, but they don't enforce them. It will be up to the patent holder to hunt you down and get the authorities to punish you.

    4. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, I think you might be under just such an obligation. You're still using the patented technology without a licence.
      The end user is under no obligation. The end user isn't the one that needs the license; Microsoft is. If Ford infringes on a patent with a part in their car it doesn't mean that they then have to replace all of those parts in every car sold. If you still feel otherwise please cite case law to support your assertion.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. 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!
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by ajakk · · Score: 4, Informative

      35 U.S.C. 271(a):
      Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC 1 et seq.], whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
      (emphasis mine)

      --
      Come play Heroes of Might and Magic Mini online.
    10. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by DRJlaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      Not necessarily. It is appropriate to use allegedly so long as the judgment is not final. The judgment will not become final until Microsoft has exhausted or waived its right to appeal the jury's decision before higher courts such as the Federal Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. If a higher court reverses the verdict, then "definitively" just became... bizarro world definitively.

      Since Microsoft is already acting, you are probably correct, but for a somewhat different reason than the one you announced.

    11. Re:Apply this patch to remove functionality! by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. I don't think so. by RancidMilk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Patches are for pirates!

  3. I wonder... by holySherm · · Score: 3, Funny

    if the patch will be made available to users who have unregistered versions of Office. Or will it be treated like a content update instead of how they treat security flaw patches.

  4. 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.

    1. Re:Whose problem is this? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you required to install security patches?

      You haven't read the liscencing agreement, it seems.

      The TOS states alot of things, like your sacred duty to grab a skullbat and assist in the Cleansing when Gazuga appears. It's all in there.

    2. Re:Whose problem is this? by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Whose problem is this? by johnwbyrd · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are incorrect. It is your responsibility to make sure that you are not using non-infringing code. 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.

      This is a common negotiation point during software licensing, but Microsoft is very historically consistent in the way that it phrases this limitation of warranty.

      And yes, I do negotiate IP licenses for a living...

    4. Re:Whose problem is this? by utlemming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Whose problem is this? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Whose problem is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Whose problem is this? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Whose problem is this? by xtieburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Whose problem is this? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What counts is what a JUDGE rules, nothing else.

      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.

      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
      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:

      1. The original poster's examples were moronic - they disproved the points they wre trying to make
      2. Vendors are liable for hidden defects and buyers have recourse
      3. class action suit - PROFIT?
    11. Re:Whose problem is this? by xtieburn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      '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.

    12. Re:Whose problem is this? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  5. You'd think... by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:You'd think... by flappinbooger · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's Emporer Amado to you, mister.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  6. Who does /. hate more? by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

    The guy who patented interaction with a spread sheet, or Microsoft?

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Who does /. hate more? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government for granting software patents.

  7. WHAT functionality? by linolium · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story doesn't exactly mention what functionality the patch removes. But there is another article about it here with a bit more information:

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

    "In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database using a single spreadsheet. He said he tried to sell this technology to Microsoft in 1992 but they turned him down. According to Amado, Microsoft started including his software in their releases between 1995 and 2002."

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

    Is OpenOffice affected by this?

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    1. Re:What about OO.org? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably not, if the patent is: "In 1990 Carlos Armando Amado filed a patent for software which helped transfer data between Excel spreadsheets and Microsoft's Access database using a single spreadsheet."

      Then OOO isn't affected as its program's are completely different.

    2. Re:What about OO.org? by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 3, Funny

      To the best of my knowledege, OpenOffice.org has no built in function to move data between Excel and Access.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  9. Apply this patch to maintain licensing! by mpathetiq · · Score: 5, Informative

    We received an email from Microsoft licensing last week that addresses this issue.

    Here's the text:

    Background:

    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. As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced.

    Action required:

    As a result of the above ruling, you are required to:

    Install Microsoft Office 2003 Service Pack 2 (Office 2003 SP2) for all your future deployments of Office Professional Edition 2003 and Office Access 2003, Install the Microsoft Office XP Service Pack 3 Patch (Office XP SP3 Patch) for all your future deployments of Office XP Professional and Access 2002

    Action requested:

    To keep your current systems in alignment with your future deployments of these products, Microsoft is requesting that you also update all your current Office Professional Edition 2003 and Office Access 2003 installations with Office 2003 SP2, and Office XP Professional and Access 2002 installations with the Office XP SP3 Patch.

    How do I do this?:

    You can obtain both Office 2003 SP2 and the Office XP SP3 Patch by going to the website listed below and downloading it directly, or by contacting your reseller.

    Please visit our site at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/officeupdate/def ault.aspx.

    Sincerely,

    Microsoft Licensing, GP This makes it seem like we are being forced to upgrade to maintain licensing.

    --
    Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
    1. Re:Apply this patch to maintain licensing! by skiman1979 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  10. I wish.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  11. Re:What does it change? by jeffy210 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Never mind, went deeper and answered my own question:
    "Microsoft has released an update for Microsoft Access 2002. This update removes the functionality in Access 2002 that lets users add new data to or edit existing data in a linked Microsoft Excel worksheet."
     
    Two words: Hell no. That's not a "small" part of the market segment, IMO.

    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
  12. Interesting MS spin by dpille · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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_?

  13. Prior art by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  14. 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.
  15. OK let me get this straight... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft won't release SP3 but forces us to patch Office? :-/

  16. 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

    1. Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? by faloi · · Score: 3, Informative

      The end users are still indemnified. They're not getting sued. Microsoft never said THEY were indemnified. There's an article here that covers some recent changes to the indemnity clause that business licensees get. I dunno if that extends to people with individual licenses, though.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

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

    3. Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

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

    4. Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? by foobar_fred · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      Indemnification means they're going to lengths to protect their customers as far as legally possible. But if you choose to use their product in an illegal manner, why should you expect to be protected?

      Microsoft is paying out $8.9 million to this guy for previous infringement, they're providing a patch, and no one is being sued beyond Microsoft.

      Presumably their clients who use the products in the legal-n-licensed are still indemnified. Please have a valid point when you Microsoft-bash or you lose credibility.

      --
      feh.
    5. Re:Now, what was that Microsoft was saying? by greginnj · · Score: 4, Funny

      'As-is' is exactly right, same as if you're buying a used car from a dirt lot. If you read your MS licenses carefully, you will find that they specifically avoid claiming that the software will allow you to type a sentence, add two numbers, or draw a straight line.

      In practical terms, you are actually licencing a product that is not guaranteed to *DO* anything at all. Any functionality you might use is just gravy you should be grateful for. So from a licensing standpoint, they owe you nothing in terms of continued functionality of any kind, because they never promised you any functionality in the first place.

      I had a professor who used to read a software license, but replaced the words 'software application' with 'Ford car' wherever they occurred. The effect was hysterical -- it wasn't guaranteed to do anything, wasn't guaranteed not to crash, not to have defects, etc. Try it sometime, it's a good brain exercise.

      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
  17. This is why I think patents are good by flyingrobots · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's the only way the little guy can win against those who would use their stuff w/o asking.

    Kevin

    1. Re:This is why I think patents are good by db32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  18. I submitted the story the last time... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?)

    1. Re:I submitted the story the last time... by killjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow man you are so much smarter then the army of IP lawyers MS has. I mean they spent years on this case, spent tens of thousands of dollars, paid millions of damages all for nothing. They just could have asked you and you would have slayed the court with your argument. DOH!. I can see you in court now.

      "Your honor, I present to you the the feature of appleworks which uses shared memory back in the mid 80's! "

      Judge: "Well OK then, I am struck by your insight and research, case dismissed!"

      Dude that would rock!

      --
      evil is as evil does
  19. Indemnification? by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Informative

    I thought MS offered indemnification. Guess I was confused. Guess that was just server software. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /topics/ipi.mspx

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  20. Re:Show me the money? by Orne · · Score: 4, Informative

    He was originally asking $500 million, a sum that I would consider "tons of $$$". Microsoft claims that they had been working in-house on the capability to add the linking since 1989, and Mr Amado approached them with a working product in 1992. From other research, it appears that the "trick" in question is to link an Excel document from Access in read/write mode as an in-line table, something we all take for granted in the modern Office versions.

    Microsoft said no thanks at the time, and released their in-house work in 1995 with the release of Office95. The jury decided that there wasn't sufficent evidence that Microsoft was in the clear, so they settled for $9 million and an agreement to cease using the technology.

  21. Losing patent disputes is good for Microsoft by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  22. Would be nice to know which Patent by misha_thal · · Score: 2, Informative

    I found two between 1976 to present, neither of which seem on the face of it to be relevant. Anyone know the actual patent in question?
    News reports should include such basic info so that
    readers can do some of their own analysis if they so choose.

    This is what I found at http://patft.uspto.gov/:

    1. 5,701,400 Method and apparatus for applying if-then-else rules to data sets in a relational data base and generating from the results of application of said rules a database of diagnostics linked to said data sets to aid executive analysis of financial data
    2. 5,537,590 Apparatus for applying analysis rules to data sets in a relational database to generate a database of diagnostic records linked to the data sets

  23. Software patents suck by Intangion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  24. 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.

  25. Re:Beginning of the end of 'Lord Microsoft' by drxenos · · Score: 4, Funny

    I give you these 15...CRASH...10 commandments!

    --


    Anonymous Cowards suck.
  26. patent dispute!!! by Zaloc · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft where's my companies rebate since we lose some of the functionality that what we had paid for!!!