Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ordered To Pay $290M, Stop Selling Word
Cytalk and other readers tipped us to Microsoft's loss in a US appeals court, in a patent case brought by Canadian company i4i. Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date. A Seattle PI blog reports that Redmond has a few options left: "In a statement, Microsoft said it was working hard to comply with the injunction. The company also said it is considering further legal options, including possible requests for a new hearing or a writ of certiorari from the US Supreme Court." Update: 12/22 20:47 GMT by KD : Tim Bray has up a blog post explaining why it would be no great loss if Microsoft dropped the "custom XML" feature in dispute.
Update: 12/22 23:04 GMT by KD : Reader adeelarshad82 pointed out a statement released by Microsoft earlier today, which says in part: "We expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction."
Update: 12/22 23:04 GMT by KD : Reader adeelarshad82 pointed out a statement released by Microsoft earlier today, which says in part: "We expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction."
--Greg
You are wrong. The lawsuit and patent are very narrow and only affect an obscure feature of Microsoft Word that is used by a very small percentage of users. They do not have anything to do with the Office Open XML file format (otherwise this suit wouldn't just be Microsoft Word, it would be all the apps).
i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the patent claims).
I think you're wrong. From the coverage I've read, it's a method of processing and manipulating XML documents, and they designed an piece of XML editing software around it which they showed to Microsoft and Microsoft then stole the ideas from.
It does not predate XML, and has nothing to do with XML-based standards. For instance, i4i have stated that they do not believe OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Symphony etc. infringe their patent.
I'm sure some kind person will come along and back me up on this one.
Pirate Party UK
Your post is a load of horseshit and furthers my fears that you're a Microsoft shill (your bing posts are borderline brilliant).
This is stupid because Microsoft was moving here to open XML standards from their propriety .doc format. It's a common thing to blame MS for their locked in, own formats since Open Office and others couldn't open them.
What's your point? That since they're being attacked by a patent troll I should forgive them for everything fucking stupid and backward they've done?
i4i's patent is basically XML (yes it really is, read the patent claims [uspto.gov]).
Your expertise as a patent examiner is priceless to me. As is your extreme simplification of something you know nothing about.
On the one hand, it's bad for Microsoft, so slashbot=happy. But it's a Patent win, so slashbot=angry. But it's a win for a small company, so slashbot=happy. But the small company appears to be a patent troll, so slashbot=indignant. But it's band for Microsoft anyway, so slashbot=[error: Stack overflow. Exiting.]
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Power structures serve the powerful first. Microsoft wants the patent regime, but it doesn't want situations like this. When the powerful get shafted, then we can expect patent reform.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
that i4i's stock price grew THREE sizes that day.
I'm personally shocked, because microsoft doesn't have a reputation of working with smaller companies, failing to close a contract, and then releasing their own very similar products.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Briefly reading over the patent in question, I'm curious how this patient was granted given that it resembles IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML) from the 1960s and the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) standardized by the ISO in 1986.
I assume you know that OOXML is a proprietary MS format couched in the clothing of an international standard? That it was only approved by ISO after MS manipulated the procedures, bribed partners to stack committees, and completely destroyed the technical committee? Where MS is now abusing the "correction of drafting errors" mechanism to make material changes to the standard so that it continuously conforms to the behaviour of MS's proprietary software (including reversing changes specifically made by the ISO committee!) -- instead of having their software conform to the so-called "standard". This is not to say I support software patents, especially on trivial ideas like a specific format for embedding proprietary data in an XML file (what i4i has "invented"). However, you should not fall for the MS "openness" scam. Just because it's XML doesn't mean it's not Microsoft.
On the one hand, it's bad for Microsoft, so slashbot=happy. But it's a Patent win, so slashbot=angry. But it's a win for a small company, so slashbot=happy. But the small company appears to be a patent troll, so slashbot=indignant. But it's band for Microsoft anyway, so slashbot=[error: Stack overflow. Exiting.]
As far as I can tell, i4i is not a patent troll -- that is, they developed the technology, and developed and marketed a product based in said technology. In fact, this almost looks like a poster boy case for the upside of patents -- the little boy is using his patent to stop the big boy ripping it off. It would look better if it wasn't for the glacial pace with which the trial and appeal have proceeded.
Pirate Party UK
World of Warcraft uses XML for it's UI
http://www.wowwiki.com/XML_user_interface
Well thank you for pointing that out. Now we know and can proceed to retrieve monetary losses from the only two applications in the history of computing to use the XML format.
Sincerely,
John Phillips Suesalot
CEO of i4i
Its the sound of the patent system beginning to crash down. RIght now there are two choices
1) Take the fundamentally broken US system and roll it out across the world
2) Take the rest of the worlds approach that software can't be patented and roll it out to the UK
The scary thing is that even with judgements like this and the patent trolls out there we are actually seeing the likes of Microsoft push for option 1.
Patents will be the death of innovation if the system continues in this way, particularly if the US judgements are assessed at insane levels of cost. If Microsoft had known about this patent when starting the development they'd have bought the company for less than this judgement.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
It's not going to disappear. i4i has said that certain applications that use XML (Such as Open Office) Do not infringe on their patent. Which means they didn't patent XML, they patented something to do with XML. Which Microsoft used, others do not. Thats why Microsoft is feeling the weight of this and not anyone else.
Since XML was started in '96 by the W3C, and i4i's patent was filed in '98, i4i does not own any of the rights to XML like you are saying.
Yes - Lots of places use XML. However, the chances of it disappearing are even less than the chances of HTML disappearing.
When has prior work ever stopped a patent from being issued?
... and Microsoft goes blind
Then slashbot happy.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Well, on the one hand, the patent gives i4i the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention. The court has already told MS that Word is infringing, therefore selling Word would violate the patent rights. MS could simply removing the infringing feature and it could continue selling Word. MS is in control of this aspect.
On the other hand, at the moment, i4i has very little incentive to offer MS any sort of license. i4i won at the lower court and on appeal. Plus, I believe the story goes that they approached MS and MS sent them away and then went ahead and implemented it anyway. They will be able to demand infringement-sized royalties the closer it gets to January 11.
Something doesn't add up here. Why is i4i not simply willing to license the rights to use the patent to MS (for an exorbitant fee). Why ask for it to be removed? Seems like a license to print money.
If you read about the issue in more detail, you'll discover that i4i tried for several years to get MS to pay for a patent license, and MS stalled and delayed and equivocated about it. The lawsuit was a last resort, and AFAICT the damages are so high as a punitive measure. In theory, MS shouldn't be able to get away with ripping people off just because they're the big kid in town.
But yes, I'm sure i4i could have done things in a better way -- they're not completely free from blame for this mess.
Pirate Party UK
It's an i 4 an i.
But, what's astounding to me, is in 1995 I was using SGML as a method of separating the document content from its layout. The layout wasn't kept in a separate file, but there were mechanisms to apply publishing layout to SGML based on rules. That was the whole point of SGML and its predecessor GML.
Heck, in 1995 Arbor Text had an SGML editor which could apply formatting to SGML documents for the purposes of publishing, and the company I worked for was helping people to install SGML editing and layout systems.
I'm not 100% convinced that these actually represent novel claims. They may not have been described in terms of XML, but the state of the art with SGML sure as hell was doing the whole "maintaining a document's format in a separate file" before this.
Can anyone who understands this a little more identify what specifically is required to infringe on this patent?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
--Greg :-)
The patent in question.. Decide for yourselves.
The case involves the algorithms MS uses to open and display what they call "custom XML". It does not involve a patent on XML itself, and only affects Office 2003 and 2007, not 2010. Stop being so hysterical.
I'm sure you both don't quite understand XML then. It's about data being accessible in a tree instead of a grid. It has similar benefits to using OO programming over procedural^w^w^w^w^w^w^w^w similar benefits to using highways instead of small streets to travel long distances.
In 1995 I designed and built (most of) the software for the following CD-ROM:
"Berg, J. van den, Duijfjes-Vellekoop, G.G.J., Kunenborg, R. & Tenback, R. (1995). Marburger Index Datenbank, ein Wegweiser zur Kunst in Deutschland (CD-ROM). Munchen: K.G. Saur Verlag. " (*)
It included several internal parsers, including one for a HTML-like language that separated the content of the database from the on-screen expression. Basically, my own miniature implementation of Mozilla.
It was sold in musea throughout Germany.
I guess that should count as prior art. I'm pretty sure we could dig up the sourcecode if asked nicely.
(*) As an aside, I'm still pretty proud of that software. It runs like a charm on anything from windows 3.11 to Vista, will stay stable even with less than 1 KB of free memory (windows crashes before this program does) and we never had to do a bugfix. Written in around 20000 lines of C++. Chalk one up for rigorously applying and checking invariants and pre- and postconditions.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
(BTW checking this took a huge effort, and big searching and I'm still not sure it's the whole truth. It's astounding how much of the media, both "main stream" and alternative/blog is covering this whilst trying to pretend that i4i never did anything useful at all.)
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();