Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Grants Microsoft Expedited Appeal
patentpundit writes "On Friday, August 21, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Microsoft an expedited appeal of its patent infringement loss to i4i Limited Partnership. On August 11, 2009, Microsoft lost a $300 million judgment for infringing the XML patents of i4i by selling Word. Microsoft was given 60 days to stop selling Word, or implement work arounds that did not utilize the infringed technology. Microsoft filed an emergency appeal with the Federal Circuit, and requested a stay of the permanent injunction that will force them to stop selling work 60 days from August 11, 2009. The Federal Circuit granted an expedited oral argument, which will take place on September 23, 2009. Microsoft requested an administrative stay of the permanent injunction, which was denied, and then filed a petition to stay the injunction pending appeal. i4i has until August 25, 2009, to respond to Microsoft's request to stay the injunction pending appeal."
they might help reform the patent system
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
They seem to have been caught directly lifting code from someone else's stuff who was relying on that to make money and putting it into their own.
They have been accused of patent-infringement. That means that even the patent holders aren't accusing MS of stealing code directly. Had that been the case, MS would have been accused of copyright infringement as well.
Muddying the differences between patents, copyright, and trademark is part of the reason why debates about "intellectual property" is often confused.
This is a patent case. A software patent case. A software patent *is* a dirty trick, and the target of the dirty trick in this case is Microsoft.
Haven't you ever seen one of those movies where the villains fall out with each other and there's a shootout in the hideout? Just because Microsoft's got a bad track record with software patents that doesn't mean the other guy isn't ALSO scum.
...XML patents should not be valid. There is no invention in XML. Software patents are stupid....
Ha ! Wait until you see my implementation of EMACS using nothing but XSLT !
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. M$ has been working towards world domination using patents and monopoly power. Google is usurping the monopoly position, and others are swarming like insects around a dying carcass with respect to software patents. What goes around, comes around.....
So you think that operating in and earning billions from a foreign market shouldn't be reason to be subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign market?
I hate printers.
Personally I like it when the trolls try these huge cases rather than their normal piddly little extortions. Microsoft, IBM, and all the big software producers are still lobbying FOR stronger software patents in more countries. As said elsewhere here, you need to reform the patent system through legislation. Hopefully M$ and IBM get beaten up enough to finally realize that patents are doing them more harm than good and get their lobbying efforts on the right side.
First, they have been found GUILTY of willful patent infringement, not just accused. Second, if you would actually take the time to read about what MS did instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction "Ooh patents are bad!" and comprehend it, you'll see that MS approached i4i about working together on national security issues and then STOLE THEIR CODE.
The only person muddying the waters here is you, because you are trying to paint MS' actions in a decent light, when they are clearly, clearly in the wrong. I can only think that i4i went to court under patent law instead of copyright infringement because they thought it was a more open and shut case. That or, the MS Office programmers were smart enough to cover their tracks and that copyright infringement wasn't possible to prove unequivocally.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
If you read the patent, you will realise that is isn't patenting XML.
It's "Patenting a system for how to do" a certain thing in XML (actually SGML, but there's no different. That's why Office violates, and OpenOffice doesn't violate. It's the custom XML feature in Office, which isn't actually XML.
# apt-get pussy
E: Invalid operation pussy
# apt-get install pussy
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Suggested packages:
tits
The following packages will be REMOVED
penis
The following NEW packages will be installed
pussy
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? ^C^C^C
#
Phew!
Algorithm patents are just as bad as any other software patent. The constitution explicitly excludes scientific and mathematical discoveries from the patent system, and algorithms are mathematics, through and through. When you allow people to patent algorithms, you wind up with all kinds of messes, such as the mess we had with GIF images.
The problem with patents is that there are no provisions for cases where two people invent the same thing independently, which is a very common situation. If 10 inventors are all trying to solve the same problem, and all working independently, the patent system guarantees that the work of 9 of those inventors will be in vain. The constitution was written to mitigate this problem by excluding math and science; ultimately, software is a form of math, and should therefore be entirely excluded from the patent system on constitutional grounds.
Palm trees and 8
Your right this is slashdot, also home to some of the worlds biggest Microsoft fanboy's, and/or possibly astoturfers.
What you missed in all this was that you are confusing Copyright and a patent. So here is where you are going off.
1. Patents cover ideas.
2. Copyrights cover the specific use of language.
To infringe on a patent you do not have to copy anything but the idea. It doesn't matter if the words or code are the same or not. But that you implemented the patented idea.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
To infringe on a patent, you do not even have to copy the idea. You an independently invent the same system, and that would still be patent infringement.
Palm trees and 8
i4i may have 'a product', but really isn't anything particularly incredible ... it's basically just XML authoring via parsed-back transformed output. Whoopty-do - this is something quite basic and that could and should become commonplace in many, many different applications in future. A 'product' does not make a patent-able invention. Microsoft may be abusing the system, but i4i is worse, they're still behaving like a blatant patent troll, probably because their 'product' just isn't special anymore. We're just talking about a fight between two unethical companies ... much as I can't stand Microsoft, i4i is even worse here - they're actually *doing* what Microsoft so far has only had the veiled threat of doing via their patents.
Now the real problem with all this (as well as MS's own patents on XML-based word processing) is that it has destroyed the entire purpose of XML. XML was adopted by industry as a counter-measure to the many proprietary binary "lock-in" formats of the 80s and 90s. Initially it seemed like it was going to serve this purpose, but XML is now so ridiculously over-encumbered with bogus, obvious patents that it's impossible to create any "serious" useful new XML-based applications without infringing patents. In other words, industry has succeeded in making XML the "new" proprietary lock-in format.
MS and i4i will both continue to make reams of money relative to their sizes. The real losers here are the general public, customers of the IT industry, and potential small-business competitors/entrepreneurs.
Time for a new "XML"? This time, with a stipulation in the licensing that no patents may be made over the format.
The only possible good thing that can come from this suit will be if i4i wins, and Microsoft has to stop selling word for some period of time (I assume they'll release a non-infringing version ASAP) and then 'normal' people will actually realize that software patents are stupid, massively inconveniant, and stiffling innovation in software. Understand that this goes beyond the normal shadenfreude I have for whenever bad stuff happens to Microsoft, the patents invollved in this case are ridiculous, but are perfectly inline with other software patents granted to Apple, Microsoft, IBM, etc. The whole patent system needs massive reform, and pressure for that has to come from the general public, the software giants, (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Oracle, etc.) have way too much invested in the current system to ever challenge it; even when they're found guilty of infringement in one of thier flagship products.
In this case, the "They're a convicted monopoly" argument is a ton of BS. (Specifically, a metric ton.) EVERY Operating System comes with the official browser of the people who made the operating system. Apple comes with Safari by default. Debian comes with Iceweasel. A KDE 3.5 system comes with Konqueror. ChromeOS will include Chrome. People expect a browser to be there, and the logic for everyone else seems to be "If they want A browser, we'll give them OUR browser." That seems to me like it should make perfect sense for Apple, Microsoft, and everyone else.
By the way, the complaint was brought by Opera, which is a European company. They said it should be the top 5 browsers by market share SPECIFICALLY because they are number 5. If they were number 8, they'd be looking for the top 8 browsers in the menu. (By the way, after IE, the browsers go Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. It says something about Opera that Safari for Windows (which is horrible) is beating them.) The only reason the EU took this case was to benefit a European company at the expense of an American one. Oh, and they get to tax the American company. (That's what this fine is, a tax.) AND tools on Slashdot will think "M$ bad, therefore EU good" and mod you up to +4 insightful, and maybe vote for the incumbents the next time there's EU elections.
The bottom line here is that legislating the market away is not a just thing. It's bad when you're legislating everyone else out of the market, but it's also bad when you're legislating yourself into the market. That's the ONLY thing Opera is doing here.
No need to jump on my throat, pal. Had my reaction been knee-jerk, it would have had a bit more emotional outburst.
First, they have been found GUILTY of willful patent infringement, not just accused.
I stand corrected.
you'll see that MS approached i4i about working together on national security issues and then STOLE THEIR CODE.
I didn't really see that claim in the article you linked to. I might have missed it though as I didn't read it thoroughly. The closest thing to stealing anything, as mentioned in the article, was about MS "pinching the technology".
The only person muddying the waters here is you, because you are trying to paint MS' actions in a decent light, when they are clearly, clearly in the wrong.
You are reading too much into what I wrote. Nowhere did I hint that the actions of MS were justified. Hell, I didn't even hint that patents were a bad thing, just that patents and copyrights were different beasts and it is important to make the distinction every time one talks about them.
That or, the MS Office programmers were smart enough to cover their tracks and that copyright infringement wasn't possible to prove unequivocally.
And how would they hide their tracks and copy code at the same time? I would suppose that they did it by writing their own code but doing things the way covered in the patent granted to i4i, hence patent violation.
Try... http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/176685.asp
"ultimately, software is a form of math"
Software is just a step-by-step instruction list. It's is no more a form of math than is a cookbook. You could give instructions that make software "do" math, but that doesn't make it math any more than a student "is" math when using a calculator.
And again your post is "MSFT is an asshole, so it is good they got fucked" and my argument is no, it is NOT good they got fucked. You know why? because it is YOU that is getting fucked Chuck. Do you honestly think MSFT will just happily eat that judgment and not raise prices one single penny? Nope, they will pass that off on the millions of businesses that require custom apps that only run on Windows, who will then pass that cost onto you. Which is why I said it was a tax, since ultimately it comes out of YOUR pocket.
And as it stands now the little guy who invents something pretty much HAS to sell to a large corp, often for a very tiny percentage of what they could have got, if they even get a percent and don't have to just sell outright. Because the little guy can't afford the $10k+ to research for submarine patents, nor can he afford his own law firm on retainer to fight off patent trolls. Nowadays a case in East Texas for anyone less than IBM or MSFT equals dead company. It is JUST that simple.
So i would argue that no matter how big an asshole you think MSFT is supporting a crooked system with crooked verdicts (which is of course why anyone files in East Texas in the first place) is just as fucked up, no matter who the victim is. Just because you are enjoying some Schadenfreude out of it doesn't make it just as fucked up as if someone who made a little FLOSS app was the one getting the reaming. I would also argue it is that SAME attitude that have kept third parties out of the USA political system, because folks are willing to vote for the Dems even when they are crooks because they promise to "fuck the rich" while they'll vote for the Repubs who are crooks because they promise to "fuck those lazy poor and immigrants". It still don't make it any less than 100% fucked up, no matter how you slice it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Well, to be fair, Microsoft didn't just come up with customXML on its own, they "partnered" with i4i, learned all about their product, then copied what they wanted from it and shafted i4i. While I do NOT like software patents and think they should be abolished, I'm not really going to defend Microsoft here. They're getting a bit of poetic justice, IMHO.
Granted, I would like this lawsuit to instead concern whatever contracts Microsoft had with i4i instead of patent law (claims which aren't worth pursuing when you can get $300 million judgments from patent claims), but I honestly think that this case is, overall, a good thing because it:
A) Highlights how ridiculously overpowered software patents--even those for fairly trivial "inventions"--have become.
B) Punishes one of the biggest proponents of software patents, proving that they were lying when they talked up how much they "respect" IP.
So make no mistake: I still want to abolish software patents completely. They're patents on mathematics (and there's mathematical proof of their equivalence available) and they shouldn't exist. But as long as they do exist, I can think of nothing better to happen than for their biggest proponents to get shafted by one of the patents.