Slashdot Mirror


US Court Tells Microsoft To Stop Selling Word

oranghutan writes "A judge in a Texas court has given Microsoft 60 days to comply with an order to stop selling Word products in their existing state as the result of a patent infringement suit filed by i4i. According to the injunction, Microsoft is forbidden from selling Word products that let people create XML documents, which both the 2003 and 2007 versions let you do. Michael Cherry, an analyst quoted in the article, said, 'It's going to take a long time for this kind of thing to get sorted out.' Few believe the injunction will actually stop Word from being sold because there are ways of working around it. In early 2009, a jury in the Texas court ordered Microsoft to pay i4i $200 million for infringing on the patent. ZDNet has a look at the patent itself, saying it 'sounds a bit generic.'"

9 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. "sounds a bit generic" by BuR4N · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A statement that could be applied to more or less all software patents I've seen so far.....

    --
    http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
  2. Eastren Tx strikes again by isfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I seem to remember that this is where patent trolls are born. Wonder what they did to make this judge unhappy.

  3. Re:Live by sword... by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft's many things, but they're never a patent troll, so I'm not sure what you mean there beyond simple schadenfreude.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  4. Re:Does that mean... by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OpenOffice uses XML files by default, the format is openly-documented so anyone can use it, but it's XML. So, assuming i2i's patent is held up, how long before the OpenOffice injunction starts?

    Microsoft can simply release a patch that forces Word back to the old proprietary DOC format they've been using variants of since Word 1.0. OpenOffice would have to make up a new document format, if i2i decided to continue their pursuit.

    And if there's one thing we've learned about scum-sucking patent trollers, it's that they'll root and root for every penny they can, and don't really care about the damage they do.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  5. Re:This is nuts. by xtracto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And people wonder why big companies like Microsoft, IBM and others are in a constant race to patent everything.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  6. Why hasn't change come yet? by tchuladdiass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lately it seems that the big companies are getting affected by patent trolls more than the little guys (they have more money). And the big corps have enough political clout to push through patent reform laws. So if they are getting hammered like this, why aren't they lobbying for patent reform? Are they just not getting hit hard enough?

    1. Re:Why hasn't change come yet? by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lately it seems that the big companies are getting affected by patent trolls more than the little guys (they have more money). And the big corps have enough political clout to push through patent reform laws. So if they are getting hammered like this, why aren't they lobbying for patent reform? Are they just not getting hit hard enough?

      I reckon that the big companies are using their own very large patent portfolios to keep any new entrants from the markets they dominate. Being large and slow moving, they will also get patents upfront covering new markets to "reserve the business space" for themselves while the rest of the company slowly moves to actually do something in that business space.

      For any large and slow moving behemoth company, the ability to use patents to kill any potential future Google while they're still a toddler is priceless. Having to deal with patent trolls once in a while is peanuts in comparisson.

      This is the antithesis of what patents are supposed to achieve (they're supposed to promote progress, while killing new and innovative companies does exactly the opposite).

  7. Yup, that's an infringement y'all... by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone else stop reading after they saw "a judge in a Texas court"? I'm not a Microsoft fan, but this is getting ridiculous.

    --
    Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
  8. For those that are happy... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those that are all happy and "Yay, MSFT got screwed!" I would suggest looking at this picture explaining the patent in question and seriously think about it. From the looks of it this patent is so vague pretty much ANYTHING that uses the XML format to manipulate data in any way would could possibly be looking at a lawsuit, should this patent troll decide they are a potential cash cow. This includes OO.o. How many FLOSS applications use XML in some way? Because they have all just been put at risk until this patent is either invalidated or their ability to use XML is removed.

    If this is held up then XML looks to be a dead format, and least here in the USA. The patent is just too vague to make it worth the risk, and this includes OO.o ODF which IIRC uses XML as well. If this isn't proof that software patents need to be thrown in a fire I don't know what is. If this stands it doesn't matter how many patents one has, or how much work one puts into making a new format, as all it will take is a patent troll playing "buzzword bingo" and getting a broad enough patent to kill any format dead.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.