Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Files "Emergency Motion" To Ship Word

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."

14 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Re:You reap what you sow by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're wrong, and overmoderated.

    There is no patent troll in this case.

    i4i is an actual company, that sells actual products. They worked with Microsoft, and Microsoft, line for line, stole their code. i4i subsequently sued them, and won.

    There is no patent troll in this case.

  2. Re:You reap what you sow by smclean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i4i is an actual company, that sells actual products. They worked with Microsoft, and Microsoft, line for line, stole their code. i4i subsequently sued them, and won.

    Hi, uninformed person here. If they stole code line for line, why is this a patent case and not a copyright infringement case?

    --

    "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

  3. Re:I figure that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, because if there is one thing I have learned from Slashdot in the past few months, it is that any judgment that I disagree with must automatically have come about because the judge is corrupt and has been showered with money by evildoers.

    It is, of course, impossible that the law could favour my enemies. I mean that is just ridiculous. I'm right and therefore I should win every time. Hell, it works that way in comic books.

  4. Why can software get patented again? by Beltonius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As far as I'm concerned, whoever wins in the end, all that's been demonstrated is how absurd software patents are.

    1. Re:Why can software get patented again? by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without patents, the rich get richer and the poor, small software company ALWAYS LOSES.

      This is a rare case where the smaller company may benefit. In most cases, the larger company will just point out the numerous patents of theirs that you're infringing, and then tell you how the case will be settled. In more cases still, the new company has no chance of patenting anything, so they're unable to enter the market, or risk being sued, because of the difficulties of bringing a product to market without stepping on every software algorithm and other idea that's already been patented by someone.

      And I still don't understand taking their side just because they're smaller. Bad laws are bad laws. When that random company threatened to sue every ISP on the planet because they had a hyperlink patent, was everyone rooting for the little guy then?

  5. Re:You reap what you sow by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wrong. True, a traditional patent troll is one that makes no real products. However, MS's activity against Linux can certainly be seen as "trollish", because of their vague threats meant to stir up FUD. At least the traditional patent trolls have the decency to state which patents are being violated, even if they're BS patents.

    So, unless you can come up with a better term for their despicable behavior, I'll continue to use the term "troll" for MS.

  6. Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hate to be on Microsoft's side but they are right on this one. Maybe if they fight off enough patent trolls they will join in efforts to reform patents out of self preservation.

    The problem is that they themselves patent just about everything under the sun.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  7. Re:You reap what you sow by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A patent troll is a company that offers no products, but files lawsuits based on patents they own.

    That's a bit too narrow.

    Justice Bradley stated, in 1882

    It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.

    Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.

    Those "speculative schemers" are patent trolls. It doesn't matter whether they actually use each "shadow of a shade of an idea" in a product of their own; they're patent trolls even if they make their own product, as long as they try to prevent others from using those non-novel or obvious ideas.

    By that definition, i4i is a patent troll, and Microsoft has, in other instances, acted as a patent troll.

    Not making a product is neither necessary nor sufficient for patent-trollism. An organization which mainly does research might legitimately obtain a patent without any intent of developing it themselves. And an organization which makes a real product might engage in patent-trolling to put competitors out of business, or to obtain a revenue stream when their own product has failed.

  8. Re:I figure that by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure it's a detailed synopsis as to how the US patent system is utterly broken, how it allows the most obvious ideas, and even ideas with a long history of prior art, to be patented. It probably goes into great detail as to how this is severely damaging both the US and global software industries, and how it burdens large companies with having to maintain vast portfolios to defend against just such attacks, and raises prices and creates uncertainty due to licensing costs.

    Of course, it's sealed, because while Microsoft doesn't want to be the victim of this moronic and corrupt system, it also doesn't want to preclude being a potential beneficiary either.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:seems reasonable by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a fucking XML-encapsulated document structure. The entire point of SGML and SGML derivatives like XML is to encapsulate data into documents and other file structures. If this use of markups can be patented, then I'm heading down to the patent office to patent CSS.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Re:I figure that by Gerzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh no. Very few judges are bribed or corrupt these days. Politicians go so much cheaper and are more effective.

  11. Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some people have the radical notion that perhaps an idea can't be owned by one person.

    The patent system was not made for people to own ideas, it was made for people to own IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas, this is where patents tend to fall flat on their ass with software. With every man and his dog patenting 'the ability to do x'.

  12. Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side... by calc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, its okay because Microsoft uses patents as weapons and not just defensively, and so they are now getting what they deserve. See the TomTom case for example.

  13. Re:They may win this one by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft already lost the case, they were already ordered to pay $200 million which they have so far refused to do.

    Normally, once the court finds you liable and orders you to pay, you have to actually do what they ordered you to do, or face sanctions and additional injunctions, like they have.

    MS has only themselves to blame, they should have paid the $200 million to the court.