Microsoft May Try to Take i4i Infringement Case to the U.S. Supreme Court
May 11, 2010 2:31 PM
comment(s) - last by
Currently Microsoft owes i4i $300M USD in damages for infringement of its Custom XML patented technology. Microsoft used Custom XML in the best-selling Office 2003 Suite. Microsoft may appeal to the Supreme Court.
Microsoft is unwilling to pay its big infringement fine
Microsoft has tried and tried to beat Toronto, Canada-based software company i4i in U.S. Federal Court, but has been handed a long string of defeats. In May 2009 it lost a patent infringement case to i4i and was ordered to pay
$200M USD in damages
. Then in December 2009 it
lost its appeal
to the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in an increased judgment of $300M USD in damages, including $40M USD tacked on for "willful" infringement.
lost yet again
, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected Microsoft plea that the patent used in the case be reexamined. Microsoft is left with two options -- pay the big fine or try to continue its climb up the legal ladder to the only remaining rung -- the U.S. Supreme Court. That may be what it decides to do, its lawyers indicate.
Microsoft's Director of Public Affairs Kevin Kutz responded to the defeat of the USPTO request for reexamination,
, "We are disappointed, but there still remain important matters of patent law at stake, and we are considering our options to get them addressed, including a petition to the Supreme Court."
I4i has made it clear that it claims
no ill intentions towards Microsoft
. It claims it merely wants to be rewarded for the Custom XML scheme that cost it millions to develop, which Microsoft liberally borrowed from and used in its best-selling Office 2003 Suite. For the small company a reward would mean it could continue its format development work, while a defeat could spell financial ruin for the business who took a gamble on the massive legal fees required to carry out a litigation campaign against Microsoft.
The company writes in a
, "i4i’s ‘449 patented invention infuses life into the use of Extensible Mark Up Language (XML) and dramatically enhances the ability to structure what was previously unstructured data. As the magnitude of data grows exponentially, this is a critical technological bridge to controlling and managing this sprawling octopus of data and converting it into useful information."
This core element of the case -- Custom XML -- is a scheme for storing and displaying rich information. Microsoft used Custom XML in Office 2003, but did not pay i4i licensing fees, according to the plaintiff's claims. Microsoft disputes this, but has since removed Custom XML from its Office products via a patch to escape a court order
forcing it to cease sales
Office 2010 beta/RTM builds
use Custom XML, as well. Custom XML should not be confused with the similarly named Open XML, which is unrelated to the case.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: As they should
5/11/2010 4:22:16 PM
I agree. Custom XML is a use for which XML was designed in the first place, hence the "eXtensible" in its very name. The PTO is not supposed to award patents for an idea that is "obvious to one trained in the prior art". Tagging a word or phrase as a means to tie it to data stored elsewhere....hmmmm. Isn't that about what a HTML hyperlink does? The difference between HTML and XML is that in HTML, the tag type is predetermined. In XML, the tag name can be anything, so long as there is a schema defining the tag. XML was designed to be extensible. Duh! You don't even have to be very highly trained in the prior art. A retarded chimp could have "invented" Custom XML.
I'm not a big fan of M$, but this is BS. Must be political. Certainly isn't technical.
RE: As they should
5/12/2010 2:03:36 PM
I'm not defending i4i or MS, but the patent is from 1994. I might be wrong, but you can't look at what they patented with 2010 eyes, afterall, what today is common sense for even the begginer programmer, might not have been 16 years ago (hence, XML being created 2 years after the patent file).
And also, by the ongoings of the law suit, the courts have agreed that Microsoft infringed the patents (and knowingly), so, I wouldn't assume the patents are BS.
“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs
Microsoft Office 2010 Hits RTM
April 19, 2010, 9:21 AM
Microsoft Loses i4i Appeal, eBay Prevails Against Tiffany & Co.
April 2, 2010, 9:54 AM
I4I Says It's "Not Out to Destroy" Microsoft Word With Sales Ban
August 13, 2009, 10:16 AM
Texas Judge Bans Microsoft From Selling Word in the U.S.
August 12, 2009, 8:10 AM
Microsoft Fined $200M USD for Violating Open Source Patent
May 21, 2009, 2:52 PM
Quick Note: Whoops, Microsoft Pushed Unwanted Windows 10 to Some Users
October 15, 2015, 9:04 PM
Quick Note: Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 10565 Fixes Boot Camp 6.0 Issues
October 13, 2015, 11:39 AM
Microsoft's HD-500 ("Display Dock"), the Magic Sauce Behind Continuum
October 6, 2015, 5:30 PM
Quick Note: Windows 10 Hits 110 Million Devices, VMs
October 6, 2015, 4:30 PM
Windows 10 on Raspberry Pi, IoT Devices Sees Developer Debut
August 12, 2015, 2:41 PM
Sony Issues Bizzare "Do Not Update" Edict to VAIO PC Owners
August 11, 2015, 9:42 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information