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.'"
Does that mean the next version of Office will really be a re-branded version of Office 97?
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
I seem to remember that this is where patent trolls are born. Wonder what they did to make this judge unhappy.
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?
Even if you're not a Microsoft fan, you have to admit this is pretty frapped up.
According to the ZDNet article, Microsoft owns a patent on XML in word processor documents, but i4i owns the patent for "anything that touches custom XML formatting" in said documents.
The way i4i's patent sounds, this would also affect other things like OpenOffice.org and anything else that uses XML formatted documents. That's like, the entire current generation of word processors, isn't it?
I'm starting to wonder if patent lawyers can pick and choose who grants their patents from the Patent Office (they pick the non-tech literate ones) like they do with the courts when they sue over patent infringement (e.g. most patent cases are from east Texas).
-JJS
Remember, Microsoft pushed 'Custom XML' as a key distinguishing feature of OOXML during the fight to get it approved in ISO. 'Custom XML' was the reason (according to them) why ODF was not sufficient, feature-wise. IANAL, but if Microsoft cannot implement "Custom XML" without licensing this patent from i4i for a quarter of a billion dollars, then doesn't this likely mean that no one else is free to use "custom XML" either? Ergo, OOXML is not an open standard.
Yeah, they just use FUD and the threat of patents to try to scare people away from using Linux.
I think he was talking about Microsoft's embrace of software patents http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2007/03/analysis-microsofts-software-patent-flip-flop.ars
Microsoft has been pro-software-patent since the mid 1990s...
The circle of life:
According to This Patent, they invented having the XML hold the word processing info... It's just too bad that they didn't invent a way to write the xml file itself.
So, in the current US situation, no one can create an xml word processing document, as you can't write the xml, but even if you could, you aren't allowed to store the font and page number in the file.
This is beyond ridiculous
Contact them and express your hatred.
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?
Did we forget about their suit against TomTom for the questionable FAT patent already?
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
... unless they're both enemies, and they're really big, then you just stand back and be happy that they're not fighting you.
So when does the O'Reilly "Learning XML Patents" book hit the shelves and what animal will grace the cover?
Bill Gate's quote on the subject:
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then they have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can. "
taken from the 1991 memo at http://www.std.com/obi/Bill.Gates/Challenges.and.Strategy
Gates knows software patents are bad for the industry, but Microsoft still lobbys for software patent laws in many countries. They will win in the EU soon...
To represent patent lawyers everywhere.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your trolling simply doesn't measure up to the high standards we have here at Slashdot. You see, unlike at digg or fark, we here at Slashdot have a rich tradition of truly great trolling, and because of this we try to attract only the best and brightest of the trolling community. Our trolls have gone on to lead very rich and lucrative careers in exciting and rewarding fields such as shills for Microsoft and Comcast management. Who do you think came up with the "Word incompatibilities" and "Weird Excel Math" bugs? That's right, a former Slashdot troll!
So please, in the future put more care and thought into your trolling. Remember that you are walking the path blazed by such luminaries as the GNAA and that you stand beside such greats as the shit eater troll and the ASCII goatse guy. So in the future try to remember the greats that came before you along with your trolling peers and live up to their high standards. Maybe if you troll hard you too will join the greats and have your portrait in the trolling hall of fame!(Currently located in the mens room of the Hooters restaurant in Paramus,NJ) Thank you for your time and may you have a successful career trolling here at slashdot!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Microsoft's many things, but they're never a patent troll, so I'm not sure what you mean there beyond simple schadenfreude.
Look, it's a matter of trust. These silly patents obviously hold water so it's not a matter of "can" or "can't". I don't trust any corporation, not because I'm paranoid but because the whole point of trading is to gain as much profit as possible. All businesses, especially larger corporations, have one goal and that is profit. If Microsoft finds itself in a difficult position (obviously not today, but perhaps about in 10 or 20 years), you can be damn sure that they will do anything in order to regain profit. You can't blame a corporation for having this ultimate goal, it's their end purpose. But it doesn't mean you should trust them, or even encourage them. I myself work within a corporation, and anybody who has ever worked in business management knows these very simple rules of business. Morals are shit, cash is king.
If you ask me any patent holder is a potential troll. Sure they're all nice and friendly when things are going well, but when the shit hits the fan the tables will turn, it's that or bankruptcy (e.g. SCO). So you see it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". Again I'm not blaming anybody and I would have done the same thing, as would any person who knows the first thing about business. But I'm not [currently] in that position, I'm on the other end, the consumer end, so naturally I have different motives. My question to you is, in what way do you, as a consumer, benefit from their patents? Don't say lower prices because we both know that's complete and utter bullshit, at least not in MS position. So you see there are none. Then what is your motive? Is it because you enjoy their products? Well there's no shame in that, but why side with the seller? If you enjoy the product you naturally want it, and by the fundamental goals of trading you want it for as little cost as possible. In order to get this you have to show your sceptism. Is the price really fair? Are the terms fair? Am I bound to anything which will make it difficult or expense when something better and cheaper comes along? If you don't trust them they will eventually meet you in the middle (not necessarily you as an individual, this applies to groups and audiences as well, but with even more effect), as long as there's some profit for them. Naturally any business must generate profit, but for your sake it should be as low as possible. Why else would MS want to lower prices or improve terms and products? To keep you as a customer? They do that simply by gaining your trust, which you've already given away.
So next time you think: "would a business do that for profit?" you should first ask yourself:
A) Is it legal?
B) Would it mean profit? (In this example it would perhaps not mean profit today, but remember that patents are valid much longer than one day)
If the answer is yes to both questions then the answer to your questions would be the same. That's how business works my friend.
I am the lawn!
At first I thought this was BS... the way they're describing this patent (in the articles about it) makes it sound like i4i's patent basically applies to any markup language (XML, SGML, HTML, etc). It does not. What they have a patent on is using a map to locate the tags, so that tags don't interfere with document content. If MS is doing this, it isn't part of standard XML, AFAIK.
Let me say it again: This patent isn't about XML, SGML, CSS, etc. It's pretty specific, and, if Microsoft is actually violating it, it's because of what they're doing differently, not because they're using XML.
All that said, IANAL, so there may well be something important I missed.
No, but that hardly counts because it was TomTom that was the one trolling there, and Microsoft reacted defensively. That was well documented in every Slashdot discussion related to it, but it seems to have been totally forgotten (or deliberately overlooked) by many people in subsequent discussions, with Microsoft coming out as looking like the attacking party.
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.
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.
Just to clarify, becasue the lede is quite misleading: this is not a "Texas court". State courts (e.g., the courts of Texas) do not handle patent infringement disputes or remedies. This is a Federal court located in Texas. The scope of the injunction is therefore nationwide. The fact that it's in Texas is a red herring -- its only significance is that this particular Federal Court (EDTx) has a history of being extremely friendly to patent holders.
I'm sorry, that 1991 memo was 17 years old in 2008, and is no longer valid.
The patent is pretty vague. Lotus Notes/Domino has separated data from document (form) for years back into the early nineties. In other words, you could change the form or the view representing the data without affecting the underlying data itself.
From the patent abstract:
"A system and method for seperate manipulation of the archicture and content of a document particularly for data representation and transformations. The systems for use by the computer software developers removes the dependency on the document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced an provided and stored seperately from the document. The map indicates the locatino 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 efficieny of multiple versions and efficiency of operation."
looks like a typo you made in the patent number. Check out http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5787449.html for the full text.
Who are we supposed to favor in this fight? Microsoft or the patent troll?
I can't quite figure it out myself.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
If we have sunk to new depths, it is by having giants stand upon our shoulders
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
never? wasn't microsoft recently threatening to sue linux users, not just distributors, with infringement of patents they couldn't even identify? just because they suck at it doesn't mean they aren't doing it
> Microsoft's many things, but they're never a patent troll
Maybe you forgot.
MS claiming linux violates 235 patents without telling which ones, is not patent trolling? It's a textbook example, like the mentioned FAT quarrel with tomtom.
Besides, for the crybabies who keep repeating the "Slashdot hates microsoft" story. Look at the rating parent earned.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Its mostly patent FUD designed to inhibit Linux adoption. Its only patent trolling when its used to back lawsuits or extortion of license fees (which doesn't seem to be the main use of the claim.)
If we have sunk to new depths, it is by having giants stand upon our shoulders
I thought it was from standing in the footprints of giants.
If a giant tries to stand on your shoulders, you'll probably find yourself in the footprint fairly fast, albeit not standing.
So the patent works like this: Instead of storing markup within a document, you instead store the markup separately from the raw data and then map each markup element to a character position in the raw data, like this:
:P
--Original document--
<foo>This is a foo</foo><foo><bar>This is a foo bar</bar></foo>
--i4i patented storage--
Raw document:
This is a foo This is a foo bar
Metadata Map:
1 <foo> 0
2 </foo> 13
3 <foo> 14
4 <bar> 14
5 </bar> 31
6 </foo> 31
The idea is that you should be able to edit the raw data, or the markup, independently of one another. The patent outlines three core scenarios: 1) Taking an existing document with inline markup and separating the text and the markup, 2) Generating a "separate data and markup" document from scratch, and 3) Combining the markup and raw data of a doc generated from scenario 1 or 2 back together to produce a document with the markup inline.
So why is this neat? The patent claims that you can edit both the content and the markup independently of one another. Except that you would require a specialized editor that manipulates both components to be able to do this and still maintain the "mapping" of markup to raw data. Hate to say it, but I can already do this on normal, inline-markup documents using notepad, or any WYSIWYG HTML editor.
The other claim is that you could apply any map to any raw data. Except that, unless the character positions of semantic elements in the raw data were exactly where the "Metadata Map" expected them to be, the result would be a huge mess. Practically speaking, the application of a metadata map to multiple documents (since the map is based on character position) would most likely require additional inline tags to align the separate metadata to the content, thus defeating the whole purpose of the patent. Or maybe you could establish a "standard sentence length" in order to allow one map to be applied to different documents - that would be great.
I'm having a hard time understanding how the technology described in this patent is actually useful at all, let alone how Microsoft has infringed on it. In fact, if they *did* actually use this technology, then they deserve to be punished for using a stupid idea.