backtop

Print 27 comment(s) - last by KamiXkaze.. on Dec 25 at 8:00 PM
Microsoft will comply quickly

A U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a $290 million judgment against Microsoft Corporation in a patent case launched by i4i Inc, a small Toronto-based company. The Court has issued an injunction against any and all sales of Microsoft's Word 2007 software, including the popular Office 2007.

The injunction takes effect in the U.S. on January 11. Therefore, all copies of the software sold before this date are not affected.

Microsoft quickly issued a prepared statement after the ruling and injunction in order to reassure consumers:

With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products. Therefore, 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.

Retailers and OEMs will be the groups most affected, as they will have to replace all copies of Word 2007 and Office 2007 on shelves and contained on drive images.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Still confused
By Spivonious on 12/22/2009 3:47:33 PM , Rating: 5
What is the patent in question? All I've found is a vague reference to using XML to store text, which shouldn't have been a patent in the first place.




RE: Still confused
By blaster5k on 12/22/2009 4:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
The article here at CNN gives more info -> http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/22/technology/microso...

It looks like another ridiculous patent to me. Of course, there isn't a single software patent that isn't ridiculous really.


RE: Still confused
By PitViper007 on 12/22/2009 4:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
The difference between this and a "run of the mill patent troll" is that i4i not only got the patent, they developed and sold products based of this patent. That in itself makes me think more favorably towards i4i. Combine that with emails showing Microsoft new there was an existing patent and went ahead and used it anyway? I'd say it's pretty damning.


RE: Still confused
By PitViper007 on 12/22/2009 4:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oi....New = KNEW. Proof read and STILL didn't catch it. COFFEEE!!!!!


RE: Still confused
By Omega215D on 12/23/2009 1:31:36 AM , Rating: 3
*commercial jingle* Every new begins with K


RE: Still confused
By croc on 12/22/2009 9:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's a bit worse than that... MS also went after I4I's clients, trying to get them to change to MS products.


RE: Still confused
By lco45 on 12/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Still confused
By Lerianis on 12/23/2009 4:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that how many ways can you make 'algorithms' to do the same task? Not many, I'd wager, and that is the main reason that these patents are a little ridiculous, because they don't acknowledge that there are very few ways (without overwhelming obfuscation by just adding unnecessary commands) to do some things.

These 'piecemeal software' patents need to go, and we really need to say that if an algorithm or way of doing something is created.... that it CANNOT be patented.
The whole product you make with that thing in it can be patented, but not the piece of the software in question.


RE: Still confused
By omnicronx on 12/23/2009 10:22:38 AM , Rating: 1
It was not merely an algorithm. Its all about the use of custom XML in Office 2007 (which is not normal XML). i4i has had a similar product that does the same thing for almost 10 years as they first released a plugin for Office 97.

As another poster noted, they also tried to steal away their business, specifically in the medical field.

Microsoft was in the wrong on many levels here. The patent in question IS i4i's core business, they are not merely a patent troll company.

What I don't get is why MS has not already removed the Custom XML code from Word 2007 and started distributing versions of Office sans Word + custom XML, as I'm pretty sure this is the only piece of Office software that makes use of it.


RE: Still confused
By Spivonious on 12/23/2009 10:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
That's their plan. They will have modified versions out in the OEM channels before the injunction goes into effect.


RE: Still confused
By omnicronx on 12/23/2009 11:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
I figured, so essentially this story is being overblown everywhere. Sure it affects Microsoft, OEM's and those using custom XML looking to buy new Office licenses, but to the consumer, its going to be pretty much a transparent switch.


RE: Still confused
By noirsoft on 12/24/2009 4:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
I just read most of the patent. It does not cover vanilla XML, what it covers is a system by which your markup tags are separated from the document content. Instead of embedding the tags in-line, you have a separate "meta-table" which lists your tags with address pointers into the content document specifying where each tag begins and ends.

Their claim is that, among other things, this allows you to not worry about the troubles if you want to have the tag text appear in your content, and it makes revision systems easier, since you don't have to re-write the entire document if you just want to change the tag-level organization.

I suppose it could also allow for multiple meta-tables so that (in conuunction with mutliple stylesheets) could make it easier to present documents across multiple reader platforms.

IOW, it's not a patent that affects general XML or markup languages in general, and I've not heard of a similar idea with respect to markup languages.


Will Office 2010 be effected?
By Bateluer on 12/22/09, Rating: 0
By DigitalFreak on 12/22/2009 6:19:12 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt it. If the feature hasn't already been removed from Office 2010, it will be in the next Beta / RC.


RE: Will Office 2010 be effected?
By messyunkempt on 12/22/2009 10:47:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
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


I'm gonna go with no...


RE: Will Office 2010 be effected?
By omnicronx on 12/23/2009 10:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, the first injunction came before the Beta was even released, so MS probably made the right decision here..


RE: Will Office 2010 be effected?
By KamiXkaze on 12/25/2009 8:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
So they will remove the said problem in 2010

kXk


RE: Will Office 2010 be effected?
By kattanna on 12/23/2009 10:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
i'd have to say yes it will be affected, in that it will probably be released sooner then expected giving MS a way around this whole injunction

in effect "winning"


Color me not surprised...
By Motoman on 12/22/2009 2:59:38 PM , Rating: 4
...I'm pretty against patent trolling, but in this specific case there appears to be positive email trail evidence that MS knew precisely that they were doing something in violation of an existing patent, and apparently went ahead and did it anyway.

Perhaps thinking they could just get the patent owner to drown in legal fees, or sway a judge with their good looks and smooth talking.

Anyway...taking the functionality out is probably the easiest and best thing for MS to do...




RE: Color me not surprised...
By PitViper007 on 12/22/2009 4:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. From what I saw i4i has a pretty tight case.


stab in own foot?
By AssBall on 12/23/2009 4:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
The judicial system generates a lot of paperwork. I'm sure lots of it is from MS Word. So now we (tax payers) get to pay the system more money for what will be more expensive software once MS fixes this. It's like the judicial system sued itself, in a way. Congratulations to the i4i folks, at any rate. But do you think any of that money will show up in the employee's pockets?




RE: stab in own foot?
By Kurz on 12/23/2009 8:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
So you are saying its ok to Patient Infringe?
Let the case go through.


RE: stab in own foot?
By chagrinnin on 12/23/2009 9:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
Patients have rights too! :P


Opps, caught again!
By Beenthere on 12/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Opps, caught again!
By Bateluer on 12/22/2009 4:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
Governments needs money, so they're targeting successful private enterprises. Some of the lawsuits have been justified, some have been a joke, like the EU's suits against MS over the bundling of IE and WMP in Windows.


RE: Opps, caught again!
By honkyMcSchnozell on 12/22/2009 7:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's in another country where you can be sure things can't work in your favor.


Notification sent to Microsoft...
By chagrinnin on 12/23/2009 5:32:26 AM , Rating: 3
"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki