DailyTech - Microsoft Granted Stay on Word Ban

Submit News

Software Microsoft Granted Stay on Word Ban
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - September 4, 2009 10:05 AM

19 comment(s) - last by ZachDontScare.. on Sep 7 at 2:17 PM

Microsoft is granted a stay on Word ban until appeal is complete

The U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of Texas has become a hotbed for patent infringement suits thanks to a judge with a history of siding with patent holders in disputes. The latest and highest profile case heard in the court was a patent infringement suit brought against Microsoft by Canadian firm I4i LP.

The Canadian firm won a ruling in the case that found Microsoft was infringing on patents held by I4i in the implementation of XML programming language in some versions of its Word program (Word is part of Microsoft Office and one of the biggest moneymakers for the company). In addition to barring sales of Word with the patent infringing technology, the judge also awarded I4i a $200 million verdict in the case, which was later increased to $290 million.

Microsoft has won an decision to stay the inunction set to go into effect on October 10 that would have forced Microsoft to stop selling Word without removing some features. The Federal Circuit in Washington said it acted "without prejudicing the ultimate determination of this case."

Oral arguments in the appeal are set to be heard in Washington on September 23 and the order for an injunction originally granted in Texas won’t go into effect until the appeal is resolved. The court said that Microsoft met the conditions needed to be granted a stay.

Microsoft's Kevin Kutz said in a statement, "We are happy with the result and look forward to presenting our arguments on the main issues on Sept. 23."

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I propose...

By MrBlastman on 9/4/2009 10:40:17 AM , Rating: 5

That they settle this once and for all over a game or three of Archon on a C-64. Best out of three wins and Ballmer is allowed to have Bill stand-in for him. We all know that Ballmer's shiny forehead would be too distracting to his opponent.

Soo... that would make it Bill vs. Loudon. The C-64 will serve as a neutral platform (Canadian heritage I'd say matters little) and may the best man win. Personally I think Bill's Unicorn will trump Loudon's Shapeshifter but that remains to be seen.

Wouldn't the world be so much better, simpler and--more exciting if we got rid of all the Lawyers and settled things in this fashion?

RE: I propose...

By kd9280 on 9/4/2009 11:00:17 AM , Rating: 4

"Can you imagine a world without lawyers?"
*everyone singing in harmony, hand-in-hand*

Parent

RE: I propose...

By djcameron on 9/4/2009 11:13:51 AM , Rating: 2

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. - William Shakespeare

Parent

RE: I propose...

By quiksilvr on 9/4/2009 9:50:51 PM , Rating: 3

"If there's one thing that I hate more than lawyers, its Shakespeare" - ME

Parent

RE: I propose...

By bhieb on 9/4/2009 11:33:15 AM , Rating: 5

quote:
*everyone singing in harmony, hand-in-hand*

And no legal way to make them stop!!!! OH THE HUMANITY

Parent

RE: I propose...

By ClownPuncher on 9/4/2009 11:15:08 AM , Rating: 2

Oldie but goodie

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29743

Parent

RE: I propose...

By Shawn5961 on 9/4/2009 4:01:30 PM , Rating: 4

"Gates is also rumored to be in possession of a bag of holding containing one terabyte of information..."

Gotta love 12 year old tech comments.

Parent

What exactly was patented?

By heulenwolf on 9/4/2009 12:38:33 PM , Rating: 2

CNET's Buzz Out Loud podcast interviewed the CEO of I4I within a day or two after the initial court decision. Even he could not succinctly explain exactly what I4I had patented. BOL folks asked him repeatedly to explain further but the picture never became any clearer. They patented "Custom XML," whatever that is. Isn't all XML custom? Perhaps organizing your XML file such that content and formatting are grouped separately is what the patent covers. Can anyone explain what is and is not patented in English?

Whatever the case, I'm glad to see that this article did not mistakenly state that I4I had patented all XML, unlike many other articles on this story. That's the kind of inflammatory miss-statement that leads the software industry into a bunch of pointless thrashing.

BOL also pointed out that internal communications from MS presented as evidence in the case showed that they knew about the patent's applicability to Word and violated it anyway. I4I is hardly a patent troll and MS deserves punishment or, at least, to pay a licensing deal favorable to I4I.

RE: What exactly was patented?

By TomZ on 9/4/2009 12:51:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I4I is hardly a patent troll and MS deserves punishment or, at least, to pay a licensing deal favorable to I4I.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Just approaching this from a common-sense perspective, do you think that Microsoft reviewed I4I's products and/or patent and decided it would be a great feature to add into Word? Probably not.

More likely, they were XML-izing Word and thought about what that would mean, reviewing customer use cases, etc., and came to develop features that happened to overlap I4I's. As part of due diligence, they probably came across the patent, realized it would apply, they probably thought they could fight the patent because it is overbroad. So they decided to take a chance.

I would personally call I4I a patent troll because they decided to go after Microsoft to collect a hefty sum. The (legimate) reason to have a patent in the first place is to protect you from competitors. Clearly Word is not a competitor to their products. I4I also waited years for Word's XML to become established in the marketplace, instead of bringing the suit right away. This is an obvious strategy for maximizing the "take."

I know someone will bring it up - the patent system is inherently broken - and I agree with that. Suits like this are clearly designed to maximize profit off a broken system, plain and simple.

Parent

RE: What exactly was patented?

By drycrust on 9/4/2009 2:58:01 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
do you think that Microsoft reviewed I4I's products and/or patent and decided it would be a great feature to add into Word?

As I understand it, that is exactly what happened. I4i developed XML programs that were unique and targeted at the pharmaceutical industry, and they were making money out of it. Then Microsoft saw they were making money, so they basically copied the work of I4i, and instead of marketing the programs to the world at large they also targeted them at the pharmaceutical industry too. This, obviously, affected I4is profit.

Thus one could argue (and I4i obviously did) that if I4i hadn't done their initial work then MS wouldn't have developed either the XML features in Word or targeted that work at the pharmaceutical industry. Rightly or wrongly, the ban on Word with XML features sales should stand until MS can appeal it.
If I was videoed taking food from a supermarket and then selling it cheap in the car park and the supermarket sued me for the lost profit, and the supermarket not only won, but the court banned me from continuing to doing this, should I be allowed to continue doing this until I have appealed the case?

Parent

RE: What exactly was patented?

By ZachDontScare on 9/7/2009 2:17:22 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Thus one could argue (and I4i obviously did) that if I4i hadn't done their initial work then MS wouldn't have developed either the XML features in Word or targeted that work at the pharmaceutical industry.

And one could also argue that without MS Word, I4i would never had had a product either. Using your train of though, I4i is the infringer.

quote:
If I was videoed taking food from a supermarket and then selling it cheap in the car park and the supermarket sued me for the lost profit, and the supermarket not only won, but the court banned me from continuing to doing this, should I be allowed to continue doing this until I have appealed the case?

Thats a really stupid comparison. MS did not 'steal'. They supposedly infringed on a patent. A much better comparison would be if you saw that someone opened a supermarket and was making money... so you went and opened your own. Should you get sued for 'stealing' the idea of a supermarket?

Parent

Good

By Smilin on 9/4/2009 11:05:47 AM , Rating: 2

Good call.

This ban on selling word is such a horrendous punishment that the defendant would be forced to settle rather than wade through an appeal. If there are grounds for an appeal then defendants should get it..that is justice.

Now back to the matter at hand. MS has still been found guilty. They need to do their appeal and do so quickly rather than trying to drag this out.

I have some faith in the legal process.

Last time I checked, XML wasn't a programming language

By ipay on 9/4/2009 5:24:19 PM , Rating: 1

But I guess I don't get to decide that, seeing as I'm neither judge nor journalist.

WOW!!!!! /sarcasm

By gunzac21 on 9/4/09, Rating: -1

RE: WOW!!!!! /sarcasm

By TomZ on 9/4/2009 10:49:06 AM , Rating: 2

Yes, I agree - Microsoft should for sure throw in the towel and give in to all patent trolls. That would be much better than fighting them.

</sarcasm>

Parent

RE: WOW!!!!! /sarcasm

By SoCalBoomer on 9/4/2009 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 2

and obviously you haven't read the patent complaint or you'd realize that MS is first, but Apple, Sun (OpenOffice), WordPerfect - ALL violate as this is all about ANY word processor that processes XML . . .

Isn't ignorance bliss, esp when you're a MS hater?

Parent