On Tuesday, a judge ordered Microsoft to stop selling Word, its flagship word processing software and one of the main components of the Microsoft Office System - namely part of Word 2003 and Word 2007. This also now extends to Word 2010 which contains the same feature set.Judge Leonard Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to a statement released by attorneys for the plantiff, i4i, CNET reports. Microsoft stated that it planned to appeal the verdict. i4i sued Microsoft in March 2007 that Microsoft violated its 1998 patent (No. 5,787,449) for a document system that "eliminated the need for manually embedded formatting codes. "
XML (Extensible Markup Language) is considered a "page description language," with one of its key features being that humans are able to read it legibly, not just PC's and other devices. XML allows developers to create their own tags for data.
In May 2009, a jury in Tyler, Texas, ruled in favor of i4i that the custom XML tagging of Word 2003 and Word 2007 infringed on the patent owned by i4i and ordered Microsoft to pay $200 million in compensation.
In Tuesday's ruling, Microsoft was also ordered to pay an additional $40 million for willful infringement, as well as $37 million in prejudgment interest. Microsoft must comply with the injunction within 60 days and the injunction specifically states that Microsoft way not test, demonstrate or market Word products that contain the XML feature in question.
The Microsoft Office system overall generated a 9.3 billion dollar profit in 2008 alone, and this move would hurt that business immensely.
It's bull crap man. They even already paid money...
No, it isn't. The ruling is perfect.
The problem isn't in the ruling. The problem is in the law. Patent laws are stupid.
What goes around comes around
In my eyes no one is more deserving of patent lawsuits than MS. A sweet day to be sure
Yeah, real sweet. Until Microsoft just axes all the XML formats from Office and puts everyone back on .doc, .xls, etc. forever. Then all the open source dweebs that are cheering now can go back to whining about how un-open Microsoft is.
The thing is, the Pages format is not used by 90%+ of companies. The word format is industry standard.
And plus, iWork does not have even half the functionality of Office.
LOL.. Pages and iWork is a joke.. I can't believe you are serious.
Yes, I can't believe he's serious either hehe
Why out of curiosity? I'm a long time Word user and recently bought a MBP -- out of habit I used Word for a while on OSX when I decided to give the latest Pages a shot and I really enjoy it - especially for white papers or research reports that require a lot of images since Pages treats everything like a floating text box. Images and tables in word drive me crazy with all the different overlay/move types -- in Pages you click and drag and it's there.
The thing is, Pages exports to DOC, RTF and PDF just fine.
Ever stop to think about that the vast majority of users don't need all the functionality Office offers?
Yeah... Big.
Goes to show you don't think. Linux and anti microsoft bashers are laughing except they don't realize that this also means Open Office etc. are also affected by this ruling.
The patent only applies to MS office, sorry fella
For now... Until someone usees this ruling as a basis to sue Open Office.
super... Big
Except no one will sue them because they won't get $200 million out of it. Everyone wants to sue Microsoft cuz they are huge and they think can get money out them. Unfortunately, they usually do. I don't know the details of this particular case, so I can't comment much on it. I have to imagine that Microsoft won't just stand by and say, "Ok, lets stop selling Word", it's too big of a revenue stream. They will probably work out some sort of partnership with i4i.
OpenOffice is owned by Sun, which is part of Oracle. They have a money dump-truck that can be raided too. It doesn't matter if the software's free.
This is what should be expected with patent laws the way they are.
Apple would destroy Linux. It wouldn't even break a sweat in the process.
Apple would destroy Linux. It wouldn't even break a sweat in the process.
hehe, if MS went under, the whole world would be flailing helplessly for months or even years as companies and governments get everyone re-trained on Apple or Linux because their Microsoft products would be growing out of date, closed source, and unsupported somewhat.
In fact, it would probably help everyone to just release all the source code and let Windows communities patch stuff up themselves in such an event.
Just because Hitler killed people doesn't mean that Stalin is less evil.
Hope you got my point.
Hope you got my point.
Excellent comparison.
Hope you got my point.
I agree
Hope you got my point.
So your point is that they are both weird? So all the people whinging about EU should shut up, because the US has bad laws as well?
So your point is exactly the same as Skadi's point, except you managed to invoke godwins??
Just thought I throw these in here because these two were murdering B........ , hence, not really related to this topic.
Losing this feature would truly suck.
Last edited by mikeaag on 12 Aug 2009 - 11:54
Yep. Their OpenDocument Text format is very similar to OfficeOpen XML (the one used in word), so they're violating too.
I believe the suit revolves around a single xml file, whereas OO uses an archive that contains multiple files. Or something of that nature.
You have it the wrong way around. The OpenDocument format has been around far longer than MS's format. Not only that, but the OpenDocument format is ISO approved.
ISO approved doesn't mean that it's not breaking the patent and according to this ruling would be in violation. Yes this would affect OpenDocument as well.
The patent system seriously needs to overhauled. Phrases such as, "eliminated the need for manually embedded formatting codes. ", is go damned vague that it could apply to most anything.
What was so vague in that lawsuit/patent?
The methodology was logical and obvious. Typical of patents. Just like the patenting of screen navigation techniques. MS does it to others, so why can't it be done to them? Fairs fair hehe.
How can you patent a generalised name storing convention? You guessed it MS did it, and they sued TomTom over it. I Have zero sympathy for this tyrant.
You can't, and they didn't. They patented their method of storing long file names and the method was copied.
We know that already.
I think he means there were question marks over the patent in the first place. The real point here is the software patent system is broken, irrespective of who is suing who. It stifles proper competition and innovation, and puts money in the pockets of lawyers. (What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.) The ultimate loser is the consumer.
what the hell communism got to do with it? why americans feel the urge to slap the communism word everywhere, even if not related? If they infringed the patent, they have to pay.
law is law.
communism got nothing to do with it, and got nothing to do with your so called freedoms.
It's the law that has the problem, not the judge.
Uh, being a US citizen, I'm not exactly sure you're from here...
Ok, I have to make some corrections and apologize. I was just in shock last night when I saw that and it was late. I reacted before I had time to think it over. You are correct that it is the method based on the standard that is in question. Sorry that I came across so strongly on this post. As far as my comment about this being America and not a "communist" country, I was simply trying to convey that it seems to me like companies are not permitted to peacefully conduct business like they used to be able to. All of these lawsuits are annoying and ridiculous and I agree with the fact that the patent and copyright system needs an overhaul badly! Again, sorry about the misunderstanding.
U Stupid ass!
This can actualy only happens in faken America! - There is no law and its all about screwing ppl around,.... BTW,... where is your America lately?
The same way company can patent food. like corn, etc...
I hope this was sarcasm, lol.
9.3 billion dollars - profit - one year - off of one software suite. jesus.
LMAO - keep on living in your dream world. Hope it's cosy there.
EDIT: oops, better not give them any ideas huh? lol
The article is misleading - while it is a judge in Texas it is not a state court. It is a federal court and it's ruling therefore applies nation wide; the use of Texas here is simply misleading. The only thing worth mentioning is that the particular federal court is usually fairly friendly to patent holders..
Would I be correct in guessing that Microsoft can watch this go away if they pay another $x00 million in compensation?
I "thinked"? I am tired of xenophobic arrogant americans always bashing the EU and calling them money grabbers and corrupt for enforcing the law. Now your own people are doing it. What, no one calls Texas a corrupt and money hungry state?
And secondly, I see few people bashing the EU while defending this ruling therefore there is no hypocrisy.
Coming from the country that spawned enron?
Yea, I forgot.. we all got together and started up Enron. I forgot all about that meeting. Thanks.
IIRC that rule applies to trademarks, not copyrights.
Oh i hope i4i has infringed on some microsoft patents, i really do.
Seems to be the trend lately, sue microsoft, we aint doing to well lets blame and sue micosoft.
Funny thing is i bet i4i use microsoft office......
http://www.i4i.com/collateral/05-26-09-Rel..._to_pay_i4i.pdf
I wonder if I made a vague patent for a 'water distribution system'...could I then sue the water company because they provide water to people?
Before the flamers begin, I'm not saying "OH MY GOD. XML IS VITAL TO LIFE!!". What I'm saying is vague patents should not be allowed. Also, if you make a patent then you need to show you actually use it or are at least researching how to use it. If neither of these two conditions are met, then you lose the patent.
Microsoft regularly threaten anyone they feel like with patent infringement.
As far as I am aware they have done this type of thing before - remember the disk compression issue over Dos 6 ?
What goes around comes around - fair enough I say.
All this bleeding heart fanbois bleating over one of the richest and most aggressive companies on earth is laughable.
PS They will probably end up buying the company in order to avoid the pay out - thats the way rich corporations get to act like they do if they lose in court.
Yes, but STAC didn't try to sue for until after Microsoft bought it. If STAC had left well enough alone they wouldn't have been counter sued for illegally reversing the DOS kernel (to tie Stacker in to the OS like drivespace/doublespace was) and might have still been in business today.
OT:
Has i4i ever claimed infringement on any others before this? If not, I don't see how this made it to court. It would seem to me that to protect that patent that they'd have to go after anyone and everyone who uses it. It does seem that it's business as usual where companies don't take any measures against anyone except Microsoft.
Sounds to me like they are stealing an idea from the playbook "double Jeopardy".
Microsoft regularly threaten anyone they feel like with patent infringement.
As far as I am aware they have done this type of thing before - remember the disk compression issue over Dos 6 ?
What goes around comes around - fair enough I say.
All this bleeding heart fanbois bleating over one of the richest and most aggressive companies on earth is laughable.
PS They will probably end up buying the company in order to avoid the pay out - thats the way rich corporations get to act like they do if they lose in court.
+1
Absolutely correct sir. I salute you
Last edited by rm20010 on 12 Aug 2009 - 18:09
How about we hope that our stupid patent laws get fixed so that no company can pull this kind of crap in the future?
Last edited by rm20010 on 12 Aug 2009 - 18:09
+1
Definitely. Software patents suck.
An add-in for Word? So you're telling me these idiots tried to get Microsoft to stop selling the product that's required for their own product to work? o.o;
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 12 Aug 2009 - 14:46
It is not the use of XML or the idea of XML that is being challenged here. i4i patented ('invented') the concept of editing XML using a traditional word editor (i.e. creating extensible markups that are able to represent traditional word processing text) and that is probably a discovery of some worth.
The technology in question (as indicated in the article this post links to!) is almost exclusively related to Microsoft Word templates which use this special form of XML markup for easy manipulation.
Please illustrate the facts correctly before starting a FUD war that wastes everybodies time.
This is a perfect example of the kind of FUD you are generating -- find me a precedent where a judge has been sued for enforcing the law as it is written? It isn't the judge, it isn't the jury, it isn't the plaintiff or the defendants fault -- it's the system. Please god give it a break and stop generating mindless FUD.
It is not the use of XML or the idea of XML that is being challenged here. i4i patented ('invented') the concept of editing XML using a traditional word editor (i.e. creating extensible markups that are able to represent traditional word processing text) and that is probably a discovery of some worth.
The technology in question (as indicated in the article this post links to!) is almost exclusively related to Microsoft Word templates which use this special form of XML markup for easy manipulation.
Please illustrate the facts correctly before starting a FUD war that wastes everybodies time.
This is a perfect example of the kind of FUD you are generating -- find me a precedent where a judge has been sued for enforcing the law as it is written? It isn't the judge, it isn't the jury, it isn't the plaintiff or the defendants fault -- it's the system. Please god give it a break and stop generating mindless FUD.
Yeah, the templates in question are what drives Word, thus making it harder to sell
It is not the use of XML or the idea of XML that is being challenged here. i4i patented ('invented') the concept of editing XML using a traditional word editor (i.e. creating extensible markups that are able to represent traditional word processing text) and that is probably a discovery of some worth.
The technology in question (as indicated in the article this post links to!) is almost exclusively related to Microsoft Word templates which use this special form of XML markup for easy manipulation.
Please illustrate the facts correctly before starting a FUD war that wastes everybodies time.
This is a perfect example of the kind of FUD you are generating -- find me a precedent where a judge has been sued for enforcing the law as it is written? It isn't the judge, it isn't the jury, it isn't the plaintiff or the defendants fault -- it's the system. Please god give it a break and stop generating mindless FUD.
Yeah, the templates in question are what drives Word, thus making it harder to sell
I can't remember the last time I used a Word template. I am one of the administrators for an enterprise environment of 25,000 clients and I can count on one hand the number of complaints we had when one of the other admins ran a script that wiped out Word templates (it was a joke!).
I would wager that the average users opens word, starts typing, hits save and is done with it.
Yes the patent system is broke to hell and back, if it wasn't they should have never awarded Microsoft the XML patent on Aug 4th, which you fanboi's claim is a open and free standard to use.
It is not the use of XML or the idea of XML that is being challenged here. i4i patented ('invented') the concept of editing XML using a traditional word editor (i.e. creating extensible markups that are able to represent traditional word processing text) and that is probably a discovery of some worth.
The technology in question (as indicated in the article this post links to!) is almost exclusively related to Microsoft Word templates which use this special form of XML markup for easy manipulation.
Please illustrate the facts correctly before starting a FUD war that wastes everybodies time.
This is a perfect example of the kind of FUD you are generating -- find me a precedent where a judge has been sued for enforcing the law as it is written? It isn't the judge, it isn't the jury, it isn't the plaintiff or the defendants fault -- it's the system. Please god give it a break and stop generating mindless FUD.
+1
Completely agree. The same nonsense is being propagated on this site. It's time for office to ship without a word processor, lol. I wonder who would buy that?
Yes the patent system is broke to hell and back, if it wasn't they should have never awarded Microsoft the XML patent on Aug 4th, which you fanboi's claim is a open and free standard to use.
+1
Finally some people with sense on this site. Hurray
This should have been written in the article in the first place!
It is not the use of XML or the idea of XML that is being challenged here. i4i patented ('invented') the concept of editing XML using a traditional word editor (i.e. creating extensible markups that are able to represent traditional word processing text) and that is probably a discovery of some worth.
The technology in question (as indicated in the article this post links to!) is almost exclusively related to Microsoft Word templates which use this special form of XML markup for easy manipulation.
Please illustrate the facts correctly before starting a FUD war that wastes everybodies time.
This is a perfect example of the kind of FUD you are generating -- find me a precedent where a judge has been sued for enforcing the law as it is written? It isn't the judge, it isn't the jury, it isn't the plaintiff or the defendants fault -- it's the system. Please god give it a break and stop generating mindless FUD.
Yeah, the templates in question are what drives Word, thus making it harder to sell
I can't remember the last time I used a Word template. I am one of the administrators for an enterprise environment of 25,000 clients and I can count on one hand the number of complaints we had when one of the other admins ran a script that wiped out Word templates (it was a joke!).
I would wager that the average users opens word, starts typing, hits save and is done with it.
You use a template when you create a new word document. Even if you don't know it. It's called "normal.dot"
The patent system (around the world) needs to be revised because there are several holes that allows people without legitimate complains to make tons of money off it easily...
Did he say Microsoft was innocent? He said the patent system needs to be fixed so that this can't happen anymore.
You are quick to accuse people of being MS fanboys, when it's quite obvious that you are far, far more than biased the other way...
I didn't say that MS was right wth the TomTom case. They took advantage of the same system that is against them on this one.
That's why the whole system needs to be seriously revised.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
It does now, but just you wait. If OpenOffice infringes, I'm sure they'll go after it too.
No because Open Office is absolute garbage , Ive seen notepad replacements that do a better job of supplementing word .
Says a lot about how god awful your product is when its only chance of getting ahead is if every office suite on the market dies.
Amen.
Speaks volumes about the quality.
office 2010 will be released as usuall, this might cause a problem for office 2014 or something, but im sure by then xml wouldnt matter becaus ewe will have some other formats!
Microsoft will win
The judge will get disbarred for being a dumbass
Microsoft will crush that ****ty company
Three things are going to happen here:
(1) MS wont be able to sell word with office due to the injunction, and thus renders MS office unsaleable.
(2) MS will settle the dispute by licensing their patented technology for a very large fee
(3) MS will go bankrupt and the world will be a better place for all and sundry
Three things are going to happen here:
(1) MS wont be able to sell word with office due to the injunction, and thus renders MS office unsaleable.
(2) MS will settle the dispute by licensing their patented technology for a very large fee
(3) MS will go bankrupt and the world will be a better place for all and sundry
I just replied to your comment on my post in the RealNetwork DVD software news post.
And you talked about being a MS fanboy, which I'm not for sure. You are likely an anti-microsoft fanboy
What ahhell said is not right imho. They will try to settle the dispute and license the patent.
It's not the ability to write XML. It's a very specific subset of the features provided therein that is implemented extensively in Microsoft Word templates. That's all.
Also for the record that particular subset is not in the original XML specification and relates to using a map or hashtable of some sort to map the tags so that the tags don't interfere with the document content which is not the XML implementation.
Last edited by omni on 12 Aug 2009 - 14:47
Microsoft will win as they simply implemented what OpenOffice did for years, which is an OPEN STANDARD.
Pot. Kettle.
+10000000000000000000
Wooowwww... I'm kinda tempted to reply to every post who didn't read the article.
1) You can still use word if you already have it - the hundreds of millions of users won't throw it away. Mum and pop businesses might be annoyed if they wanted to grab an extra license for now, but that's not some massive backlash like you describe.
2) It's not the whole DOCX format or anything dumb, see above.
Open office may suck, but so does Office 2007 @ $400 - $600 a go (unless you are a student, and buy the same product for $100) Microsoft only have a monopoly on the Office suite, because they were able to leverage hidden call to the O/S that Lotus Suite were forced to remove from their products. This was back in the days when Microsoft were the darlings of the IT industry, and could screw over everyone.
Of the 9 billion profit Microsoft earns, only a portion comes from Word and the XML issue is a very small portion of that. Of course, comparing a so-called "ba-tardation" of one idea to an entire suite of software is beyond any logical reasoning.
How can the price of MS office ever be justified? Most people only use the basic features of a word processor etc. Eye candy like the ribbon is just an excuse to sell the same product over and over again. That's why governments around the globe are abandoning it left right and centre.
I think you meant to say $69.99:
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Office-Hom...50095477&sr=8-1
Open office may suck, but so does Office 2007 @ $400 - $600 a go (unless you are a student, and buy the same product for $100) Microsoft only have a monopoly on the Office suite, because they were able to leverage hidden call to the O/S that Lotus Suite were forced to remove from their products. This was back in the days when Microsoft were the darlings of the IT industry, and could screw over everyone.
really? I got Office enterprise edition for 19.95....home use program from the army. Best check your #'s
Microsoft has been a Patent troll for more than a decade.
Microsoft has been a Patent troll for more than a decade.
+1
Spot on. Revenge is sweet
problem solved!
There is a very interesting comment on the original article, I will quote it below as if true, it would explain a lot.
I4I the company had the world recognized top system out there for XML implementation and management in large scale companies and was the chosen to power such things as the, and this is ironic, the US patent system, the FDA's new streamlined submission system, which uses a open standard chiefly developed from two companies technologies, i4i being one of them.
While i do not usually condone these lawsuits. MS in this case realized that its efforts to avoid using XML were going against corporate customer demands, pretty much just took the best system available from a third party for this purpose and almost straight up incorporated it into word. I read quite a few articles on this when they talked about it earlier this year. And you have to remember that XML is common use now, but this was started years ago when it was not common in actual use and this companies solution was more than just a save to XML function, it was not an easy accomplishment like some of you would pretend it was.
This company made its fortune on servicing the majority of the fortune 500 companies, many of them software giants, as well as many government agencies.
What i4i has done is said "we're going to use lightbulbs to light up a garage, and no one else can light up garages using lightbulbs without paying us."
But isn't that the purpose of lightbulbs? Isn't data exchange the purpose of XML? Unless MS has used the exact same tags in their docx then i4i simply has no grounds whatsoever. Juries these days. >.>
*looks at LovethePenguin* Apparently some people don't keep up with fashion.
Makes this situation a whole lot easier and probably saves them money too.
Makes this situation a whole lot easier and probably saves them money too.
LOL hell yeah, stick it to em MS, hostile takeover ftw
Makes this situation a whole lot easier and probably saves them money too.
LOL hell yeah, stick it to em MS, hostile takeover ftw
And then fire everyone as soon as they do take it over.
A UI that takes a persnal id from a user that then allows access to data and or items.
IE passwords, pins, pin number pads ect. It is all BS that people and companys can patent an idea not an actual design just because it involves computers.
Only if the ruling is not appealed or is upheld on appeal.
However, not only is it *likely* that Microsoft will appeal, I know of NO ruling in a similar case in this particular district (this is not even close to being the first software-patent case heard in the Eastern District of Texas) that has survived on appeal (the five cases I'm aware of from the Eastern District were all tossed on appeal).
In technology cases like this, I just don't think companies get a fair trial because of the jury not knowing what the hell they are talking about. The jury, "Oh yea, those little icons on the screen you mean?".. Yea big MS doesnt need all that money.. Blah blah blah.
They need literate jury's in order to have complete and thorough tech trials. But then you have to worry about anti-MS fanboys. Its a lose lose situation.
In 60 days, Microsoft will be prohibited from selling any Word edition, or package that includes Word, which contains support for XML-based templates. This is based on the claim that the specific markup used in the templates is a patent-violating implementation of i4i's own add-on.
P.S. I think lovethepenguin works for i4i, how many times can you reply to one thread jeez!
Wasn't it the F/OSS supporters who screamed for Microsoft to embrace "Open Standards" - which brought us to the OpenDocument format and the XML inclusions?
If so, Microsoft has been lead down the primrose path by the F/OSS groups - and Microsoft should sue THEM for collusion.
CENSORED Penguin-fetishists!
I can totally imagine this site cleansed so mindless fanboys!
I can totally imagine this site cleansed so mindless fanboys!
You should see the comments on the Apple articles.
U Stupid ass!
This can actualy only happens in faken America! - There is no law and its all about screwing ppl around,.... BTW,... where is your America lately?
Sounds like they recently made the company name solely to fit this scandal-like lawsuit (Eye For Eye).
Sounds like they recently made the company name solely to fit this scandal-like lawsuit (Eye For Eye).
+1
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.