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 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.
In this case, they've been trying to do everything but. So far, their defense strategy has been to attempt to paint i4i as a patent troll who never had a product, and therefore should not have been granted a patent. That's kind of silly considering that i4i actually does have a product, and if you look at the screenshot on this page describing one of their products, it's apparent that they have had an implementation of their patent for quite a while (Word 2000 is pictured).
So far, they haven't actually attacked the patent because doing so might invalidate one or more of their own patents. They haven't attacked the patent system or any patent laws not only because they have considerable resources invested in that patent system, but because any change in the patent system really needs to happen at the legislative level and it really isn't likely that a court is going to invalidate the entire patent system.
As much as I'd like to see Microsoft directly attack the patent system itself and fight for patent reform, I just don't think it's going to happen in a court room, and I don't see Microsoft fighting a system in earnest that they have profited so much from.
And I don't blame them. It isn't up to them to bring about patent reform. It's ultimately up to We, The People.
My blog
"Or to put it another way: being part of a company doesn't give the people involved a mystical get-out-of-jail free card to be irresponsible or unethical."
I disagree. We, the people of the west, have allowed our governments and corporations to turn the ideals of free market action into an unholy marriage between all three arms of government and the powerful elite of the private sector. We have allowed powerful members of industry and government to usurp the right to do anything they want, so long as they can afford lawyers to justify their actions, ethical or otherwise. Don't like it? Sorry, it's a two party system, and both parties play the same game. You want real change? Sorry, you won't get it by voting.
I hate printers.
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.
Don't like it? Sorry, it's a two party system, and both parties play the same game. You want real change? Sorry, you won't get it by voting.
Ever heard of the 1960s? We got real change then, and what it required was grass roots efforts.
My blog
That's like saying its okay to rob somebody, as long as its somebody you don't like. Software Patents are bullshit-simple as that. They are bullshit when they are used by the big boys like MSFT and IBM, and they are just as much bullshit when they are used by smaller companies like i4i. Saying its fine and dandy because its MSFT getting screwed this time is like saying "you really shouldn't mug anybody, unless its that guy down the street. he's an asshole."
The giant minefield that is the current USA copyrights and patents system is about as fucked up and as far removed from the Founding Fathers original purpose as one could possibly get. They were originally designed to allow the little guy to make enough off of his inventions that he could continue to invent and innovate without fear of being ripped off the second his first device rolled out the door. Now they are just a tax upon all of us with the proceeds going to the top. So I'm sorry, but saying ripping off someone by going to East Texas (Patent troll capital USA) where the juries are known for not having a clue and passing out crazy judgments is okay just because it is someone you hate doesn't make it right. It is that kind of attitude that has gotten this country in the mess we are in, with so many willing to vote for somebody that will screw them as long as they screw those the voter hates worse.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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
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.
"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.