Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Files "Emergency Motion" To Ship Word

Posted by kdawson on from the my-word dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "Several days after a judge ordered Microsoft to halt sales of Word and handed down $290M in fines, the software giant has moved to stop the ban. On Friday Microsoft filed an emergency motion to stop the judgment and waive the bond requirement, according to court filings. The actual document was filed under seal, so the full contents of the request have not yet been made public."

9 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. seems reasonable by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even if this is unquestionably a patent violation, the Supreme Court has already held, in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006), that an injunction prohibiting sale of the infringing product is not necessarily the appropriate remedy in all cases. Rather, the traditional four factors for issuing an injunction must be balanced: 1) that the injury is irreparable; 2) that there are inadequate alternate remedies to compensate for the injury; 3) that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and 4) that an injunction does not harm the public interest. Microsoft has an least a plausible argument that they are not satisfied in this case, and that alternate remedies (perhaps money damages) would be better than an injunction against sale, even if indeed Word is infringing.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:seems reasonable by AmyRose1024 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Too late. Microsoft beat you to it. http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Disclosures

    2. Re:seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I4i had 200 employees and was a growing, thriving business when MS came calling after 9/ll to learn how to do what I4i was doing. That's right. MS visited I4i to learn just how to do what I4i was doing. That's just how obvious and non-novel I4i's patent was at the time. It also proves MS knew the technology was covered by a patent.

      MS blatently ripped off I4i and now they are crying because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They stole both I4i's technology and customer base. How? After incorporating I4i's technology into their own products they began to aggressively attack I4i's customer base. At the time I4i had 200 employees. Now they are approximately 1/7th of the size they were.

      I'd say that it's pretty clear that I4i has been irreparably harmed by MS's unethical actions.

    3. Re:seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm the AC you're replying to.

      What does any of that have to do with the facts of the case?

      MS didn't understand the technology. They went to I4i to understand it. I4i cooperated because MS came in concert with US intelligence and US intelligence was wanting to understand how they could search documents quickly after 9/11. That makes the technology, at that time, both non-obvious and novel to MS, the US government, and most likely the rest of the commercial software world, as they hadn't been able to find anyone who did what I4i was capable of doing. Just because, years later, you think you understand the patent and claim you can think of may applications that violate the patent doesn't invalidate the patent. It had to be innovative/novel/non-obvious then, not now.

      Here's a link to give more background.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-biblical-vengeance-of-i4i/article1253054/

  2. Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

    They did not question patent's validity in fear that it might undermine their portfolio.

    They argued both that the patent was invalid and that they didn't infringe on it, in any case. They lost on both points, but they certainly made the argument.

  3. Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except, there are no patent trolls in this case. i4i ships and sells an actual product, the patented code for which Microsoft actually stole after working with them.

  4. Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... by Tanman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that the plaintiffs are not patent trolls and have a real and verifiable grievance.

  5. Re:They may win this one by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 4, Informative

    if this injunction stands and Microsoft then wins the case...

    This isn't a preliminary injunction, they already lost the case.

  6. Microsoft was fighting tooth and nail. by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Informative

    After reading the verdict its pretty clear that Microsoft knew about this patent and i4i long before they implemented custom XML. Its probable that they did infact learn about custom XML through i4is products and patents. Internal mails was shown where Microsoft did mention i4i and even their patent numbers.

    It looks as if Microsofts counsels has done pretty much anything possible to defend themselves but the case is so darn clearcut that they just cant win. The problem for Microsoft is that Office Open XML has now become i4is bitch while ODF is wholly in the clear and unencumbered by i4i patents (according to i4i). Since ECMA-376 contains the i4i patented technology in the standard its worthless to anyone in the US.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400