Slashdot Mirror
Judgement Against Microsoft Declares XML Editing Software To Be Worth $98?
Many people have written to tell us about the patent infringement lawsuit that resulted in a $200 million judgement against Microsoft by a small Toronto firm called i4i. Techdirt has a line on the details of the suit where the patent in question is for "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document." i4i argues that this covers basic XML editing to the tune of $98 per application. "It's quite troubling that doing something as simple as adding an XML editor should infringe on a patent, but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used. An XML editor. $98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?"
Microsoft Corp said on Wednesday a Texas federal jury ...
Texas? You mean the state of Marshall, TX where Microsoft (and everyone else who wants to win) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases? I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!
My work here is dung.
Aren't all the ODF documents just XML documents? How much does Open Office have to pay for each download?
Microsoft Office may be worth $98 (what? only $98?), but what about OOo?
Oh wait, OOo has more XML compatibility. Perhaps it's worth more than MS Office? /sarcasm
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
Which makes i4i Stalin Hitler.
Yeah, too bad it sets a precedence that fucks us all.
Down with "soft" patents!
Hey, Microsoft is one of the software patent trawlers. They have to be careful about lobbying to hard for a legal weapon that could be used against them. I don't feel sympathetic in the least.
write XML editors, and send the source code to the company using disposable email addresses.
...did notepad start costing $98?
LMAO
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Well--and I stress that I am not defending this ruling--you could look at it like raising the stakes involved since there are so many patent cases.
... maybe they are just on their way to try to get all these patent cases prevented?
Example: You steal a piece of fruit. You are convicted in front of a jury and slapped on the wrist. So you and everyone else does it again tomorrow. To combat this they increase the penalty to a $70 fine and 4 days in jail. In an ideal world, people stop stealing fruit.
Of course, I'm told hands get chopped off for stealing in some countries (could be wrong on that one though). I do know in Texas they're not opposed to electrocutin' ya for certain offenses though
Doesn't make a lick of sense at all considering you can't throw a goddamn progress bar on your application without risking litigation.
My work here is dung.
Granted in 1998.
It took them that long to sue MS?
it's a very fancy XML editor.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5787449
I have no idea what this patent is saying.
Abstract:
A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.
It sounds a bit like an embedded XSLT, more or less. Maybe?
XML Spy costs $224 for the basic edition. I don't know how/why that company is still in business
maybe they were after RIAA sized multiples of damages
Please reference one case where Microsoft was plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas (where Marshall resides) and won some huge award... I'm not holding my breath.
P.S. --> A plaintiff is the party that brings a case, Microsoft was the defendant in this case. Under Federal rules of civil procedure, plaintiff has a choice of forum (assuming there is personal jurisdiction and venue, but MS conducts business in all 50 states, and venue is often pretty easy to manufacture as well).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Patents will be moot post-Singularity. It will be more about technology (encryption, maybe). But, please don't even mod this. Ignore it. Thanks--the Singularity will happen even if you ignore this post.
Big? Yes. Innocent? Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Only if you trying to program an XML parser without using an existing library. Creating the XML file is easy. Reading the damn thing back in is hard. Something I found out during one of my programming classes.
I don't even have to read the article to know that this must be in East Texas. Anyone ever realize that maybe Texas should succeed? Not only would it whip Washington D.C. into line faster and more completely than anything else, but it would end Marshall Texas as the patent infringement destination resort of choice.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Saves you $100 in a blink of an eye :)
Privacy is terrorism.
Indeed. I was about to post how plenty of people out there use Notepad, TextEdit, nano, vi, and plenty of other text editors and word processors to write XML.
May as well fine Smith Corona, since a typewriter from 1970 can also edit XML with the appropriate white out fluid.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
I can reference another Marshall case where they were a defendant:
http://www.shvoong.com/internet-and-technologies/gaming/1875809-microsoft-settles-lawsuit-xbox/
Secede is right. Please note the last time Texas Succeeded at anything.
I do know in Texas they're not opposed to electrocutin' ya for certain offenses though ...
We do not electrocute people in Texas. We use lethal injection. A few of us would rather we went back to good, old-fashioned hanging.
$98 is too much even for Word itself! besides, how great is XML editing in Word 2007? on version 2003 it just looks like a lame-ass text editor. however, if the lawsuit referred to Microsoft's free XML Notepad 2006, i would understand the reason for *some* of the ado. it's a great utility. butit it isnt worth more than $20 either.
Are you aware of how much genius it takes to come up with the idea of first parsing the XML file into an internal in-memory format, editing that, then flattening that back to an XML file? Nobody would have done anything different than re-parsing and modifying the XML every time a minor change was made in the editor, if it weren't for this insightful patent.
Why don't you just hang them on a conductive IV hose connected to a mains line?
Ezekiel 23:20
Isn't this a patent for a style sheet?
Separate document that covers the architecture from the content?
I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!
You make it sound like it's a good thing...
I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").
Besides the obvious implications for software like OpenOffice, this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing: spreadsheets, UML diagrams, math formulas, MS's Visio/Project outputs, the list goes on. Hell, all modern browsers support a WYSIWYG HTML editor. Do they infringe this patent?
This is absolutely terrible. The only good thing about it is that Microsoft has the money to overturn this joke of a patent, and can get enough media coverage to point out how broken the U.S. patent system is.
Sounds like a patent on MVC or Doc/View architecture.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
This is just ridiculous.
The patent would apply to any markup language. This is totally obvious and there are many implementations which have been around for more than 25 years.
There are several errors here.
1) the patent should not have been granted because to do something like this is obvious.
2) the court must be totally incompetent.
3) the defense must be incompetent as well.
Any database driven web page is an infringement. It doesn't need to be XML. In fact most databases have this and Oracle is an example. PostgreSQL also has tools which do this.
Any templating software does this.
This illustrates just how bad the USA patent system is.
I hope it goes to appeal and that this gets straightened out. The thing is we software developers are under attack these days We will find that the 3rd world will eventually do all our software development. I know I would not go into software development if I were back in my university days. If a person does anything of any significance they can expect to be sued. No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.
Why are you ignoring me?
Because if we don't, it will end your game.
RES PUBLICA NON DOMINETUR
You make it sound like it's a good thing...
I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").
Not just WYSIWYG. There are TeX and laTeX templates that aim to separate content from structure, and have been for a long time. There are even elements of it in roff. Just how old was that patent?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
...If you consider some poor sucker is paying $655.52 for the whole office package. I'd rather pay $98 for an xml editor than $557.52 for MS Office sans editor. Not that the xml editor is that important but I'd rather throw away $98 than throw away ~$600.
Perhaps this is a little poetic justice for MS's fleecing of their own customers.
Two minor points.
#1 The patent application is from 1994. The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox (and subsequently purchased by Corel). The general idea and much of the exact format was borrowed from expensive, proprietary computerized typesetting equipment that was popular in the 70's.
#2: The person who "examined" the patent, a Jankus; Almis R, is now a patent agent. I'm no longer amazed at how often bad patent applications are approved by law students, future patent attorneys and/or agents.
Geez, you guys take patent infringement far too seriously.
There's a bit of a gap between 'holds all of their prosecuting cases' and 'here is a case where they were the defendant'.
Also, if what CajunArson writes is correct, it was the plaintiff that chose Marshall and not Microsoft.
Damned if you do, dam... oh wait, just 'damned if you are Microsoft, to hell with facts'.
Balmer was upset because this patent was used incorrectly.
"Doesn't i4i know what they are doing? This patent should not have been used to get an outrageous one time payout. It should have been wielded like a large club to keep competitors in line and ensure the company's future monopoly status in the integrated XML editor market"
(throws chair across room)
"STUPID AMATEURS!!!"
Was this granted in 1994? If so it's over soon.
I keep hoping for more and more patents of obvious bullshit with prior art from the early 90s, as in a few yaers they'll all be expired and we'll be safe.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What do you mean by "all of its"? Do you know how many software patent cases Microsoft has been the plaintiff in before the TomTom case? Zero. (And BTW, Texas was convenient for TomTom, as that's where they have filed many of their suits against competing GPS companies).
Oh, and defendants have been winning more than plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas since early 2007.
On the bright side, we now know why that Anonymous Coward guy is so freaky. I'd be a little messed up, too, if I "tapped" something that's been dead for that long (above and beyond just being dead...)
> "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document"
Not to mention there's prior art. The Amiga's IFF format, for instance, was exactly that architecture, long before such things became trendy in Windows circles.
Was the case undefended? Default Judgment?
One would expect 1/2 competent lawyers to put in a discovery motion that would slow things down.
MS should just ask the open source folk to identify prior art with a reward. They still assume they are pretty good at it - or don't or can't because their same Lawyers may spot some prior art MS is trying to claim.
Produce a list of 100 prior arts, and then ask for costs
Before computer 'editors' were mainstream on PC's, there were 'Editors' for newspaper layouts.
Now metadata - Hello rest of world, how do you think Asian Languages like Chinese and Japanese get rendered - yup metadata. Markup languages were on mainframes before PC's existed. Also Fujitsu did the same for programs and data with DSECT's. I expect Fujitsu / Digital are not enforcing their patents or that they have expired.
Note the US does not recognize foreign patents, and layers can weasel out of trouble claiming they are obscure, when things get tough and money is in the offering. Which is why the list of products made in the USA will cease if the BS prevails.
Great name for a patent troll company suing Microsoft.
What the patent is about is associating formatting information with text by means other than embedding it. For example, instead of "<b>foo</b>" you separately store the instructions "foo" and "make 0-3 bold"; it calls this "content" and "meta-codes". It's a bad idea, most software doesn't do it, and there should really be plenty of prior art before 1994.
I believe the reason Microsoft steps on this patent is because of their XML format, which uses such nonsense. I don't see how ODF infringes; it doesn't use such separation of content and "meta-codes" but codes everything in-line.
I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML
Well, you should read it. The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly. Most XML formats don't do that.
It's about saying something like "in the text, make characters 17-21 bold face" separately from the text itself, instead of "{\bf hello}"
Is that it puts me in the uncomfortable and rare position of beeing on Micro$ofts side.
If the document has no metacode then the patent doesn't apply. Otherwise, there is possible infringement. Let's wait and see how it plays out during the likely appeals before taking out our cheque books. Wonder if Postcript and PDF would also be infringing. SCO all over again... oh the humanity!
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
The possibility of them wanting to tell Microsoft to "gtfo" exists. It's their choice to sue people if they see an infringement on their patents.
I'm pretty okay with it.
Respecting the open source/non-profit community is cool with me, at least I currently think that this is what they're doing (although I might be horribly wrong since I didn't RTFA.)
(No, I'm, not a fanboy of any kind and I use Windows Vista and Linux (Mint). hurrdurr idort etc. Choose your favorite insult.
Since I am bored, I read it.
"I am a <b>sentence</b>."
The patent say, bad! Horrible! Instead, use content + "metacode map":
"I am a sentence."
+
chars 0-7 : normal
chars 7-15: bold
chars 15-16: normal
This is somehow supposed to be dramatically better in every way. Every frickin memory structure ever invented to edit any kind of structured text did this first and did it better.
I'm quite surprised that anyone would ever be found in violation of this "patent", because it's a pretty stupid thing to do.
Next up, a company named 2th42th will be suing.
Patent trolls get Biblical in their vengeance.
Here's the local paper's story about MSFT...
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090520/NEWS08/905209980
Also, Yahoo! recently lost to the tune of $6.6 million! In the same damn courthouse!
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090521/NEWS08/905219967
It's not really Texas as much as East Texas in particular. The land where justice is bought and sold. Heck, now they're moving this crap up to the big city of Tyler.
The real reason they sue here is because we have the most corrupt courts in the land and the "good citizens" accept that as normal. Criminal or civil, you're screwed here if you don't have the right lawyer. But hey, what do you expect in a dry county that has the only XXX drive-in theater I've ever seen.
Heck, check out this suppressed book and bear in mind, we still have that same sheriff! Sigh.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith_County_Justice
And yes, I'm anonymous because I value my freedom. Just posting here could put me in jail. I suppose I should be using Tor too but it's alright, nobody here understands technical issues anyhow.
The host rss.slashdot.org doesn't respond and that's friggin annoying. I can ping it no problem, but it doesn't respond at all to http requests, so the responsible process probably hung or segd.
MS and IBM are the main ones jamming sw patents down our throats. There's a scenario where it leads to their justified destruction, since the whole point against sw patents is that no one or corporation can hope to patent every thought that might be useful (which is what sw patents are thought-patents). So even though they have more nukes than anyone else, they still get nuked themselves. And that's a good thing.
Developers everywhere are nearly universally in denial about what sw patents are and what they imply for those lines of code you wrote today. Every single one of us violates multiple sw patents every day. No software can be written that isn't assailable and no company can launch a product that isn't in violation of sw patents. No company except the behemoths can survive the ensuing legal judgment. The fact that it's not destroying every single company doesn't mean much, except that developers are lulled into believing they're safe.
The longer sw patents are permitted, the greater the contempt for the law becomes and the more widespread it becomes. Ultimately, contempt for law in this area will be total and absolute. And no, that's not a good thing.
And, Charles Goldfarb says he invented SGML in '74, which means the amount of prior art to something like XML is huge. The whole point was to separate content from layout, as well as (theoretically) allowing more automation on documents.
I utterly fail to see how this can possibly be something which can be patented by someone who filed an application in '94.
This sounds awfully fishy to me.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing
Then "prior art" should take effect against this patent. It should be overturned at the PTO.
I'm going to say i, albeit anonymously. I'm a patent attorney. I do mainly patent prosecution, but I also do some litigation, all of it on the defense side. The problem is not trolls themselves - property, including intellectual property, should be completely alienable. A patent troll has as much right to buy a patent as someone that will do something with it.
The problem is Marshall fucking Texas, which is where all of my cases are tried. The judges down there built up an economy around patent cases. They are alleged experts in claim interpretation, but they always favor the plaintiff and they run their courtroom like the wild west - if one side has the judges best friend as counsel, it's not a conflict at all if the other side has the judge's second best frined on their side. The jurisdiction is very plaintiff friendly because the dumb hick juries there don't know their ass from their elbow and if the government gave someone a patent, well by golly the person shoulda got one. It is almost impossible to invalidate patents there due to this mentality. And if you want to actually TRY a case there, you have to use a Texan as lead counsel because they don't trust anyone that doesn't have a Texan accent. I fucking HATE Marshall Texas and the Eastern District in its entirety. It needs to be nuked from orbit so we can start over.
I know people think the PTO grants bogus patents. I'm not that harsh. Some bad ones make it through, but there is a lot that doesn't. And on here, people weep and gnash their teeth because they rely on the summary and don't RTFP on their own. Of course everyone also thinks there is mountains of prior art available, when they couldn't produce one of these alleged references if their life depended on it. Anyway, the point is while the PTO has some part in it, Marshal TX bears the bulk of the what-the-fuck-is-going-on with our patent system. See how many ridiculous outcomes come out of other courts. It's simply mind-blowing the impact this backwater town has on our legal system.
/rant
An i4i, and a tooth4tooth
Wonder if Postcript and PDF would also be infringing.
Postscript has been around since the 80's, so it would be prior art, not infringing.
"You make it sound like it's a good thing..."
Well, since you mention it, YES, it's a good thing!! What could possibly be better, than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits? When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world, THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.
Really, I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly. Each one of them worth a billion dollars or more. Redmond will be RACING to Washington, to BEG Congress to invalidate the portfolios of patent trolls. Of course, in the process, Microsoft's own trolls will be set adrift.....
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
As a result of reading your post, the "central nervous system-stimulant-laden liquids of temperatures approaching gradual evaporation adapted to both manipulation and imbibation for the purposes of maximum early-hours alertness and/or circadian rhythm modulation" which I happened to be ingesting at the time ended up all over my keyboard
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Developers are the easy target, but please stop with the trolling about software patents being a developers' concern. They just happen to be the first users with money.
Don't get copyright (distribution) confused with patents (usage). If you are doing the same thing as outlined in the patent, you have a problem if you are outside the EU. It doesn't matter whether the code doing it is closed, open, bought, borrowed, stolen, home made or found on the street: It's not the code that violates the patent, it's the activity.
Anyone doing basic XML editing is the target for the patent. You there, hosting the RSS/Atom feed. Yeah, you. Pay up...
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
See how many ridiculous outcomes come out of other courts. It's simply mind-blowing the impact this backwater town has on our legal system.
I meant to put: See how many ridiculous outcomes come out of other courts. The answer: very few.
MS Write uses this format since Windows 3.0
It's nice because you can easily read such a file in a text editor (just ignore the binary garbage at the end of the file).
'damned if you are Microsoft...'.
Now, that would cut it in my book. A monopoly abusing its power is worth damning a little. What I found especially heartening is, that as Microsoft has become a patent troll, it is also being sued itself. Perhaps one of these days M$ will have a less stringent approach to enforcing their soft patents?
I'm not holding my breath.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
There's a bit of a gap between 'holds all of their prosecuting cases' and 'here is a case where they were the defendant'.
Also, if what CajunArson writes is correct, it was the plaintiff that chose Marshall and not Microsoft.
Damned if you do, dam... oh wait, just 'damned if you are Microsoft, to hell with facts'.
No, damned if you sue for patents and damned if you get sued for them. Software patents are silly.
The irony is that MS is now on the receiving end. And the Marshall/Texas reference is irrelevant.
Indeed, but if enough of these cases are used to sting microsoft, that they decide to turn against software patents, then the fight against software patents gains a powerful ally.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Ofcourse there is the risk that MS will simply buy this company so that they can use the patent themselves...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
an i4i, tooth for a tooth
That is a really short-sighted comment. Microsoft would never hurt themselves like that. What they'd do, and what they're very likely to do is simply buy the company, and thus own the patent themselves.
If a court will let something this generic and this powerful stand, why WOULDN'T Microsoft want to own it?
Buy the company, take the patent, spin off the company if you don't want it. Is there any reason for MS not to do this to everyone who sues them and wins with such a vague patent?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Not to mention ODF is an international standard, so any US patent should in my opinion be null and void.
So is JPEG, but look at Forgent. So is MPEG, but look at the MPEG-LA members.
The 1980s called. They want their SGML editors back.
This sounds awfully fishy to me.
So, I'm curious, how do fish sound anyway?
Well, it could have been $95 or $2007. We just got lucky.
glub glub
Microsoft is already pushing for patent reform, so I think they're already aware of the suckitude of the current system.