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. 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. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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'.

  8. 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.