Court rules MS Word Illegal for sales!

Rook Zimbabwe · Post by **Rook Zimbabwe** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:32 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32389868/ns ... d_gadgets/

I had thought that the California Legal System was screwed up... How could I know some canadian company claims all rights to XML??? Does this mean it owns everything on the internet that uses XML as well?

How do you say #!&^% Y0u in XML???

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:44 pm

Actually it was a Texas court that issued the original order. Microsoft was also granted a patent on this same thing last week, but it turns out that Canadian company had filed about six months before Microsoft. Does it mean they own everything on the 'net that uses XML? No, its just as it pertains to what MS Word does. The patent in question covers a method of separating formatting information from runs of text when documents are written to files - in other words a word document. The injunction bars Microsoft from selling any form of Word that READS the formatting information out of a .DOCX or .DOCM file, it doesn't keep them from writing.

In May in Tyler, Texas, a jury awarded the canadian company some obscene amount for MS infringing the patent. This injunction is an out growth of that jury trial.

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:04 pm

BTW, here is how to say "#!&^% Y0u" in XML

Code: Select all

<IrateConsumer id=Rook Zimbabwe>

    <Name>Rook Zimbabwe</Name>
    <Complaint id=3074>
        <Date>Aug 13, 2009</Date>
        <LineItem id=1>
            <Desc>#!&^% Y0u</Desc>
        </LineItem>
        
    </Complaint>
</IrateConsumer>

Now remember, don't try to read this with Microsoft Word.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:10 pm

This court / patent crazyness has to stop! Rumble controllers, single click checkouts, wireless controllers, online ingame chats, reading of interchangeable document formats...

PatentTrolls are getting on my nerves!

GWarner · Post by **GWarner** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:28 pm

Idiots smell money and go after it with no regard for the consequences of their actions. (Enron, WorldCom, AIG, Bernie Madoff, etc.)

Regardless of the ruling, the winners are always the lawyers and the loosers are always us consumers.

Post by **idle** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:47 pm

How could you claim reading data from disk into an open format like XML is novel? It's no wonder you have to pay $$$ for MS products they obviously have to spend most of the $$$ on lawyers to fend off the other lawyers.

PB · Post by PB » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:51 pm

This whole case is why I hate the open-source concept. It creates bickering
and fighting to no end. Proprietary apps is how software started back in the
1970s and there were NEVER such legal problems back then. Every app just
did its own thing in its own directory and all was good.

Post by **freak** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:49 am

PB wrote:This whole case is why I hate the open-source concept. It creates bickering
and fighting to no end. Proprietary apps is how software started back in the
1970s and there were NEVER such legal problems back then. Every app just
did its own thing in its own directory and all was good.

You realize that both sides of this lawsuit produce proprietary software ?

Rook Zimbabwe · Post by **Rook Zimbabwe** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:55 am

>> In May in Tyler, Texas, a jury awarded the canadian company some obscene amount for MS infringing the patent. This injunction is an out growth of that jury trial. <<

Tyler has the best Judges money can buy (outside of Dallas (aka Dinky D in 98% of Texas!))

oh... and...

@SFSxOI :

hehehe!!!

Digital Wargames · Post by **Digital Wargames** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:00 am

blueznl wrote:PatentTrolls are getting on my nerves!

This has nothing to do with patent trolls. But this thread does seem to have people who like making excuses when Microsoft once again steals the work of somebody else and claims it as their own and gets caught and punished.

It is a shame that these people posting in this thread do not take the time to actually read the patent in question or read the court rulings. These people also show a complete lack of knowledge of i4i as a company. A little education on i4i:

dennisheadley wrote:August 12, 2009 1:25 AM PDT
The company in question is not a patent troll company. They actually were the first company to develop seamless use of XML from within word. This was before MS offered any such feature of its own in word. As a matter of fact MS at the time completely avoided XML, refused to support it and tried to do their own proprietary format version of it instead.

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.

This case had nothing to do with MS using the XML format. It has to do with MS's method of implementation. This is nothing new for MS. My favorite is when they stole Stacker technology for DOS disk compression, although MS stealing Eolas' technology for plugins for IE was a very close second.

Hopefully this ruling will see the bastardization known as ODF get pulled from standardization.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:14 am

Ok, I admit, but all these court cases are patent related, and seem to be all over the range from pure patent trolling up to serious parties incurring serious damage. There's a certain grey area there.

I think there's nothing wrong with a company suing another one for theft, but if someone has a bloody patent in a drawer for years, not doing anything with it (not saying that's the case in this one, just saying that it seems to be the case too many times) and someone else develops a similar idea, a judge should assign REASONABLE compensation... So, if you didn't use your patent, or try to implement it, or use it as part of a product, or discontinued work on it, or are a registred patent troll (TM) then your compensation should be appropriate... how about $0.01?

Digital Wargames · Post by **Digital Wargames** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:38 am

MS already has made changes to Word to bypass the patent. It is just a matter of getting the new versions out, although I expect MS will file an appeal which, if nothing else, will give them the time they need to recall all of the old boxes of software and get the new ones on shelves.

I think the whole patent system needs an overhaul. Most patents should expire in five years. For software/computer related patents, I am against patents.

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:26 am

MS has finalized a deal with Nikia to bring the Office stuff to the Nokia phones next year. I'm sure Word will be there.

Yeah, the whole patent and copyright system needs to be overhauled or re-designed from the ground up.

Although I think MS knew of the patent application from the Canadian company, I don't think they set out to intentionally infringe the patent. When you read the Canadian patent there is a lot of 'wiggle' room for interpetation, but thats why there are courts - to decide if such infringment took place. What puzzles me is that the patent office actually granted a patent to Microsoft within the last few weeks for the very thing they have been sued for. The patent office knew about the Canadian patent, so i'm guessing they did not see the relevance in the Canadian patent either.

The injunction applies to Microsoft selling Word. It doesn't apply to products that were already on the shelf in stores and shops because only Microsoft is covered by the injunction. Inventory on the shelfs were sold before the injunction to the various outlets who maintain inventory - thus the product can still be sold by those outlets as long as the outlet owns the inventory and the inventory was purchased before the injunction dates.

PB · Post by PB » Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:36 am

> You realize that both sides of this lawsuit produce proprietary software ?

Yeah, but XML isn't proprietary, which is what I meant. I meant in the old
days, apps didn't use open source components like XML, they used their
own formats.

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:43 am

They used their own formats because back then we didn't have the technical innovations we have today and they saw proprietary formats as a way to maintain market share because once people got locked into a certain format then to keep using what they had created in that format meant staying with that partiicular product.