RSSMicrosoft loses i4i appeal, faces Word injunction in three weeks
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published December 22, 2009, 6:17 PM
The US Circuit Court of Appeals in DC has today denied Microsoft's appeal to overturn a court injunction preventing it from selling copies of Microsoft Word (or Office with Word). Those copies contain a feature that a jury last May found infringed upon patents held by i4i, a former Microsoft partner that built Word add-ons for editing XML.
Now, Microsoft says it will be ready to sell revised versions of Word 2007 and Office 2007, beginning next January 11 -- the date the court injunction takes effect.
"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," reads a statement from the company's director of public affairs, Kevin Kutz, this afternoon. "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."
Kutz added that the company is considering a request for a rehearing, though at that point the question may have become moot. Microsoft began patching Word back in October to remove the infringing feature; not surprisingly, very few general users actually noticed. The offending XML editing feature does not appear in the Beta 1 version of Office 2010, and probably never will.
The official disposition of the Appeals Court was not yet available at the time of this writing (typically during the holiday season, posting documents takes place more slowly). However, it's believed that the original $200 million award for i4i, with interest attached, is now valued at $290 million.
Now that Word will be minus an XML authoring tool, the add-on market for such tools could regenerate. Recently, i4i announced version 3.1 of its latest XML authoring tool add-on for Word, called x4o. The tool enables businesses that must create documents to specific standards -- especially government agencies -- to tailor XML templates for themselves. Those templates enable Word to edit documents using, for the most part, the ordinary word processor, and then save them to the exacting standards they require.
Microsoft saw this as a worthy feature as early as 2001. But then it apparently learned that i4i had a patent for software capable of editing XML schemas separately from XML documents. As i4i claimed last summer, Microsoft proceeded to circulate memoranda among i4i's customers in an effort to generate interest in a Microsoft-only alternative, effectively using i4i's customer base to build its own. Microsoft's defense had been that it and i4i had developed that customer base together, that offering an alternative was essentially pro-competitive (even if it was built into Word), and that i4i only decided to complain when it couldn't keep up its end of the competition -- a defense that evidently failed, in the opinion of the Appeals Court panel.
I cannot speak to the details of this patent but on the surface it looks to me like many software patents. They fail on the Non-Obvious test. Maybe it is because I am in software but what amazes me is far different from my wife who is in the medical field and even further from those I meet who are less educated. This does not even come close to impressing me!! I am not a M$ groupie as they have many unworthy patents too. The patent system is broke in this this area as well as others.
Score: 1
|The flawed patent system probably adds tens of billions of dollars to the economy each year. Simply multiply the amount of software patents with the amount of money they cost to bring to life: a lawyer looking/lawyerizing it before submitting, a graphic designer and other professionals/researchers to write it technically accurate, the patent office fees, etc. And then the amount of money circus lawsuites such as this create. BIG effect on economy.
That's why any reform in the patent system will not, IMHO, call for abolishing software patents as a whole (the European way), but rather would require something like FORCED licensing of software patents at some REASONABLE RATES (as determined by third party assessors). If you don't do jack with your patent for a few years, it ain't worth jack to SOCIETY to give you patent protection. You actually have products using that patent? Assessor will give your patent a value in the realm of your CURRENT profit stream (amount profit per current single implementation) and projected expansion. The patent value will be SOCIETY's value for that patent -- basically a compromise between giving you NOTHING for clever algorithms, and giving you total control to harm the market due to greed/stupidity.
Score: 0
|It does have a BIG effect on the economy but Frictional Cost is Frictional Cost. It is always easier to see what is going to be lost since you have it.
I am not sure I agree with your IMHO. It feels a bit to me like a profit margin. Although I may not understand it completely.
I think the real problem we are having here is as the education level in the world increases and information accessibility becomes ubiquitous. Ideas are becoming a commodity. And like most commodities, the focus in not on the commodity protection but on building it faster, better, and more reliable among other things. Truly revolutionary ideas deserve patents. But the bar for this measures rise everyday. Hence why they fail on the Non-Obvious test. A way I think about it is: at one point a machine harvesting cotton was revolutionary. It deserved a patent then. Today is it obvious, the product needs to sell on value on now.
Score: 0
|You're right -- there are probably multiple ways to solve the problem or at least make it less of a problem.
Another solution would be to reduce patent protection duration on something as dynamic and fast-moving as SOFTWARE algorithms/systems. Making it, say, 7 years is certainly better than leaving it at 20 years.
I still do believe that if you completely stop allowing software patents, the overall effect on the economy would be negative, even if other companies were to be using those would-be patented algorithms supposedly to boost GDP. My belief is that 99% of software patents are either bypassable (with almost-as-good or BETTER implementation) or in practice "abused" (not paying patent owner, due to closed code internal usage), or are simply never needed. Overall, the software patenting process helps economy even when it is, in fact, just another hidden taxation on dreamers (99% of inventors who never ROI'ed).
Score: 0
|As far as I can tell from the emails and such, this was a determined effort by Microsoft to undermine/remove anyone's need for i4i's software.
Now, had they done this by using something *other* than i4i's method, it would have been fine....but from the looks of it, they didn't.
Based on what I've read/heard, Microsoft is in the wrong on this one. (I can already hear the gasps...)
Pay up, MS...and get 2010 out the door ASAP.
Score: 0
|2010 will be out the door when they rearrange enough items to keep it fresh, and not a damn minute sooner! Their customers demand it!
Score: 0
|Microsoft gambled like these i4i guys gambled. There's no clear "in the wrong" in these matters, and besides, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. In the past, Microsoft got their way eventually. But that's not likely.
Ironically, Microsoft would fight nail-and-tooth to keep the patent system just as it is since it protects THEIR INTEREST wayyy more than anyone else's. This is why Microsoft may fold its tail and go home way before this reaches a permanent boomerang blow straight to the eye. The Supreme Court may tell both Microsoft and i4i "we see prior art in everything software related...and have a nice day!" which clearly isn't what Microsoft wants to hear...
I will be EXTREMELY surprised if Microsoft doesn't shut up and folds. A few $M here and there to get to the Supreme Court ain't gonna matter at this point, so the reason they're not gonna take the gamble is because they're AFRAID TO LOSE BILLIONS, not $250M increased from $200M...
Score: -3
|"There's no clear "in the wrong" in these matters"
*laughing*
Yeah....gotta love your delusions, man.
Score: 1
|Horrible!
But wasn't it Microsoft which stifled patent reforms? The patent system is obsolete for software and ought to be abolished. Microsoft knows this but their gamble is to save their business with patents. Won't work.
Score: 0
|This is peanuts for Microsoft. And they will continue on their merry way of using whatever technology they want. Nearly every software patent is based on prior art if you invest enough money in finding/arguing it.
Now if MS encounters some patent they wanna use (or more likely - a company contacts them claiming infringement), Microsoft will make a licensing offer without admitting you actually own any rights. They'll say something like "we offer you money ONLY to avoid future costly litigation even though preliminary research shows your patents contain prior art". Most lucky winners of such a letter won't gamble. They'll know MS can fight them hard, or alternatively, not use their patent. Nothing in this world is a must-have other than the air that we breath...
Offer not accepted? Microsoft will make you lose the offer value, say 10-50 million dollars..and we all know these i4i guys would never make even 10% ($20M) in profits on their own of the $200M they're getting now (or may be getting).
After the offer won't be accepted, MS will send you a nice letter stating "after further legal research, we've indeed discovered mounting evidence of prior art in X Y Z showing your patent is invalid. Have a nice day!" hehehe
Now, what we'll never see again is Google/Apple suing Microsoft or vice versa. All parties knowingly CAPITALIZE on infringing on each other's patents in one big intellectual property orgy.
The logic of their action is obvious: hey, we can't really move forward without using some of your patents, and you can't move forward without using ours. Let's just be happy we're the top dogs now and protect our patents against little puppies showing up on our turf mmm'K? ;)
Score: -2
|agree.
Small companies such as i4i find every possible way to get money from larger companies because of antiquated patent system. It is very similar to domains, some crooks buy them only to resell later to others.
Score: -1
|First of, English isn't my primary language nor am I well versed in reading "lawyerish"... but what as far as I can see, that patent shouldn't be allowed in the first place. They've just managed to patent just about everything related to internet, like CSS... nowhere their patent mention XML, thus it should go for all data that uses "metacodes" to structure it's content.
{img src="foo.png"} - HTML
{img src"foo.png" style="float: left"} - HTML with "metacode"
"...manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes..."
Score: 0
|Oh, and almost forgotten... a way more interesting patent is No. 7,508,924 - http://bit.ly/7jbMub
"Electronic mail distribution system for integrated electronic communications "
- Look ma, I've just patented the e-mail gateway (more or less).
It's a bit more specific, detailing cross-protocol stuff and TTS, and that you will be able to "regret" sending something.
Score: 0
|Yep, they just went after the biggest fish. It's astonishing they actually managed to get this far, so maybe there's something we're missing here... There's GOTTA be... If two courts hearing hundreds of hours and reading thousands of documents relating to this silly matter have judged against Microsoft then there must be more to it than just some company claiming they've invented CSS...
Score: -1
|One patent troll sues another patent troll. My heart bleeds.
Score: 1
|Microsoft isn't a patent troll. They have done amazing things with each and every one of their patents. i4i is just trying to patent technology that Microsoft invented.
Score: -1
|I especially like their patent to steal gamers medical records and give obese gamers, obese character images in the game. I also like their previous failed attempt to patent the not equal to operator in programming languages.
Score: 0
|@GD,
Suggest you look at the following link:
http://www.theglobeandma...hat-cost/article1251606/
and, read the other 2 articles referred to on the same pade.
You might also like to Google "We saw [i4i's products] some time ago and met its creators. Word 11 will make it obsolete," said one email from Martin Sawicki, a member of Microsoft's XML for Word development team. "It looks great for XP though."
And, the final word, it was in fact co-developed by a Canadian named Tim Bray. 'Nuff said?
Score: 0
|Microsoft is a patent troll. Microsoft puts their Patents in a "pool" with other patent holders, so that if and when Microsoft is sued, they can use patents from the entire field to countersue. (all the companies can do this.) On one hand this sounds evil, on the other it's a form of "Mutually Assured Destruction," where no company gains the upper hand because they will be countersued into oblivion.
This suit is simply the result of i4i having no actual tech that can be countersued with.... yet. You can bet your a** Microsoft is looking for a way.
Score: 0
|"They have done amazing things with each and every one of their patents"
Short filenames are not amazing or difficult to think of independently, it is certainly not the sort of thing that needs special Government protection.
Microsoft's anti-Linux patent FUD sounds just like a patent troll to me.
Score: 0
|