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."

Comments

seems reasonable

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:seems reasonable

[TemporalBeing]

From what little I've read on this, it seems that Microsoft basically incorporated the plaintiff's product into Word. So essentially it would put the plaintiff out of business, and could result in irreparable damages to the plaintiff. So it is likely to withstand that test...IANAL, but from what little I know it seems reasonable.

Also, it's about time this happened, given how many times Microsoft has done this to others.

Re:seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

I have a feeling

[Reason58]

In this case it appears that the courts will not have the last word.

Re:I have a feeling

[Reason58]

Getting their way is something Microsoft excels at. It is easy when you have access to their resources and the outlook to dominate any market they enter.

Powerpoint.

Re:I have a feeling

[jaavaaguru]

Word.

I wonder if...

[Jahava]

I wonder if the request was delivered as a Word document.

Re:You reap what you sow

[MrMista_B]

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.

I think it was more like this:

[CorporateSuit]

The current location of your daughter is in the attached file. Unfortunately for you, this file can only be read by the latest software version of Word we're commercially releasing next week.

--
File attached: clownfart.wdoc

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side...

[MrMista_B]

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.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side...

[Tanman]

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

Re:Why can software get patented again?

[mdwh2]

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?

Re:I figure that

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:I hate taking Microsoft's side...

[walshy007]

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'.

Re:They may win this one

[mysidia]

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.

Microsoft was fighting tooth and nail.

[miffo.swe]

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.