Court Allows Microsoft To Sell Word During Appeal

An anonymous reader sends along this update to the ongoing patent battle between Microsoft and i4i involving XML formatting in Word. "Microsoft's motion to stay an injunction has been granted; the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has allowed the company to keep selling Word as it appeals a patent ruling from last month. The injunction had an effective date of October 10, but the motion to stay blocks the injunction until the appeal process is complete. If upheld, the injunction wouldn't stop existing users from using Word, but it could prevent the software giant from selling Word 2003 or Word 2007, the most common versions of Word currently on the market, and would require the company to significantly tweak Word 2010, which is slated for the first half of next year. The victory is a small one for Microsoft; the company still has the whole appeals process to go through. 'We are happy with the result and look forward to presenting our arguments on the main issues on September 23,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. 'Microsoft's scare tactics about the consequences of the injunction cannot shield it from the imminent review of the case by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal on the September 23 appeal,' said i4i chairman Loudon Owen in response to the court's decision."

Comments

Sauce for the goose.

[Dr_Barnowl]

If they had concentrated on reforming the patent system, instead of just bolstering their patent portfolio, they could have prevented this. But instead, they prize their own ability to do this to the little guy too highly.

They are reaping what they sowed. It doesn't make the patent troll any less despicable though.

Re:Sauce for the goose.

[Gadget_Guy]

No, it was always just a plain patent infringement case about using XML for the reason that the mark up language was created. The sad part is that i4i created a product that uses Word for all of its user interface. That means they are using way more of Microsoft's code in their own product than Microsoft could have ever "stolen" from them.

Re:Sauce for the goose.

[janwedekind]

Microsoft could just argue that according to the Bilski ruling a process which is not tied to any particular apparatus is not patentable. But obviously they have their own stakes in software patents. I wonder how many more i4is (eye for an eye?) the economy can take.

Seems appropriate

[Lonewolf666]

If i4i wins the appeal, the court can make Microsoft pay for the unlicensed use of the patent. This way the patent still does what patents are supposed to do in most general terms: reward the inventor for sharing his inventor with the public. If Microsoft wins, i4i might not be able to reimburse them for lost sales.

This said, I think software patents are counterproductive and should be abolished. And maybe patents in general. For an interesting e-book on this topic, see http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

But it still would be fun to see Microsoft's cash cow whacked with the patent hammer. Especially after their petty lawsuit against TomTom.

Re:Seems appropriate

[betterunixthanunix]

If I write a book, I want to be able to sell it and get paid for it. I cannot patent the contents of a book. What makes software any different?

In capitalist america,

[For a Free Internet]

money buys justice. But this is the age of the internet, where information is everywhere and nobody reads anything. So "word" is obsolete. All we need is YouTube!

Re:no one wins when patent trolls do.

[Trepidity]

Microsoft's court papers cite a number of SGML editors that implement more or less the same features, in various combinations; anything that i4i implements that wasn't already in them is a pretty obvious extension or adaptation. The court didn't find that argument persuasive, because the non-obviousness bar for software patents is so ludicrously low that "clicking once" is a valid patent.

Status Quo

[Lord Byron II]

The legal system in the US is fixated on maintaining the status quo when it comes to major corporations. There is this "too big to (fail/not be sold)" mentality and that's what's saving Word. If it was "Joe's Word Processor" that was the infringing software, the sales injunction would have held.

It's a shame, because I would have really liked to see Dell and the others putting OpenOffice or another alternative on their computers for a few months while this thing got sorted out. And that's what should have happened. The products that didn't violate patents should have been given a competitive advantage over those that did.

Re:Status Quo

[KiahZero]

This is an application of well-settled law on the question of when injunctions should be issued:

That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion.

  -- eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

The factors do not lend themselves towards injunction even if Microsoft *wasn't* appealing to the Federal Circuit. While the appeal is winding its way through the courts (and the Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case which could invalidate software patents generally), it is by no means an abuse of discretion for the Federal Circuit to stay the injunction.

Re:no one wins when patent trolls do.

[makomk]

Except that the SGML editors don't, as far as I can tell. Certainly, the one I looked at that Microsoft cited in fact turned out to be nothing like the patent.