Three cheers for Goliath: Microsoft Word and the battle for ideas

By Carmi Levy | Published August 13, 2009, 11:47 AM

It's always a kick to watch little David saunter onto the battlefield, load his slingshot and knock off the dominant, arrogant Goliath. We all enjoy rooting for the little guy, and whenever he prevails over the odds-on favorite, we can't help but feel that all is right with the world.

Sometimes, though, Goliath needs to pound his tiny adversary into the ground.

Microsoft found itself on the wrong end of a patent infringement judgment in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas earlier this week. Judge Leonard Davis upheld an earlier jury verdict against Microsoft in a long-running patent dispute launched by Toronto-based i4I Inc. Davis ruled that Microsoft wilfully violated i4i's parent that covers specific methods used to read custom XML files.

Carmi Levy: Wide Angle Zoom (200 px)That's not the scary part for the hundreds of millions of people who spend the bulk of the workday in Word. Beyond increasing the original $200 million in damages to $290 million, Davis also imposed a permanent injunction against sales of Microsoft Word 2003 and 2007. Assuming nothing changes from this point onward, Microsoft will no longer be able to sell Word in the US in 60 days. And if you want technical support when opening custom XML-based documents, you'll be out of luck, too, as Microsoft's help desks will be banned from answering any related questions.

Look at me, says the judge

Don't buy the hype for a second. Although headlines screaming about the impending death of Word make for memorable moments around the water cooler, it's difficult to believe that a hyperbolic injunction governing one of the key instruments of modern business would ever actually be implemented. This is little more than a blatant grab for attention by an otherwise anonymous judge, and another example of how small companies that feel they've been wronged try to level the playing field by going directly for Goliath's jugular.

I'm inclined to believe we'll all still be able to buy Word in 60 days for a number of key reasons:

  1. The fight isn't over. Microsoft has already announced it will launch an appeal. Given the glacial pace of justice, the injunction will be covered with a thick layer of dust by the time every last motion is launched, debated and settled.
  2. East Texas is a patent troll's dream. The numbers don't lie. If you're a plaintiff in a patent case and you want a court that's friendly to your plight, you seek out East Texas. According to the Patent Prospector, file your case in East Virginia or Western Wisconsin courts and you've got an even chance of winning. Go to Mid-Florida and your success rate bumps to 55%. The highest patent holder success rate, 67%, belongs to East Texas. If it goes to trial, you're in even better shape: Plaintiffs win fully 71.9% of their cases here, with median damages topping out close to $20 million per case. Can we say "cha-ching?"
  3. Replacement is always an option. Microsoft is certainly capable of developing alternative technology and releasing it as a patch or an update. It isn't inexpensive, easy or without risk -- which largely explains why the company has been duking the issue out in court for the better part of five years and still hasn't gone down the tech-replacement route. But it's not unheard of, and Microsoft can work around the issue more easily than its David-like, less resource-rich opponent.
  4. Brinkmanship is the name of the game. The most eye-catching headlines get everyone's attention, and it doesn't get more eye-catching than "Word is dead." But i4i's goal isn't to put Microsoft out of business. It's to push the software giant as close to the edge as it can to squeeze the largest possible settlement out of the deal. It's a great negotiation strategy, and it's working.
  5. Microsoft and i4i were once friends. Way back in the days of Office 97 and 2000, Word had no way of natively supporting custom XML documents or templates. Microsoft looked to i4i to develop a plug-in that added this functionality. When Microsoft natively included this type of XML capability in Word 2003 -- and subsequently 2007, as well -- the situation soured between the two, and i4i launched the legal proceedings that culminated in this week's ruling.
  6. The plaintiff is out of business if Word dies. Even as the case has ground through the courts, i4i has built a consistent business creating tools that allow companies (mostly pharmaceutical firms) to create forms and other front ends that allow for rich data entry and collaboration. The tools are built both on and in Microsoft Word, so if the parent application disappears, so, too, does i4i's business model.

Beyond the legal machinations and inflated damage claims that are par for the course in cases like this lies the stark reality that Word is not just a piece of software. It's an institution that for many of us governs how we spend our day, create our work, and share it with our colleagues, clients, friends and family. We can argue, correctly, that the days of shrink-wrapped software are drawing to a close as Web services become ever more sophisticated. We can also argue that Microsoft has a limited window of time to carve out a post-Office business strategy. But we're still nowhere near the tipping point, and for now at least, the thought of a Word-less world is laughable.

The actual threat lies elsewhere

It's easy for a district court judge to make what seems to be an historic ruling when he knows full well it'll be turned over on appeal. I suspect an appellate judge for a higher court would spend more time weighing the market-impacting implications of such a ruling and less time managing the ensuing PR and media storm.

For all of those who use Microsoft Word, it'll be business as usual for as long as they want it to be. The real threat is longer-term, and comes from the Web. If anyone's going to kill the Goliath word processor -- and its sibling Office products as well -- it won't be a small developer of collaborative applications from north of the border. David won't win so easily this time, and Goliath will live on to fight a much more evenly matched opponent before long.

Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.

Comments

View comments by with a score of at least

You want to know why you pay premium for Microsoft software? Apart from the man hours spent coding, the focus groups, the marketing, customer service, etc. etc., you also pay premium for all those inane legal fees that could have been avoided if the companies who feel (rightfully so or not) that they have been wronged by Microsoft were not out there to milk the company to provide them payroll money for several years. The U.S. legal system is bloated and misused.

Score: 0

|

ODF does this too.
And an ancestor of ODF existed before 1998.
Surely there must be some stuff there that can be prior art.
And MS could do a lawsuit for slander and such.
That would be ironic: MS saved from lawsuit by competing standard.

i4i is just a mean, unproductive money grabbing company!
(eye four an eye, company name is i4i, strange, suspiciously clear even)

Score: 0

|

So...did Microsoft integrate the plugin that i4 developed, or did Microsoft integrate their own solution?

Score: 0

|

The part that I don't get is that the patent (yes I read it, the whole thing, it is not complex and is available online) doesn't seem all that related to the "custom XML" as I have seen it described. The patent is all about separating markup from content, a very much opposite approach from XML. Custom XML seems to be about including arbitrary XML inside a Word document's XML structure so that it can be read by other applications but not interfere with Word. Sound similar to you? No? Me either.

Score: 0

|

I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, this is a great article but isn't the real reason for i4I's anger found in this small but meaningful typo in para 2: "Microsoft wilfully violated i4i's parent"?

Score: -2

|

"I suspect an appellate judge for a higher court would spend more time weighing the market-impacting implications of such a ruling and less time managing the ensuing PR and media storm."

So you're suggesting that without question Microsoft should win just because it's a bigger company and it'd **** a lot of people off if they had to take it off the market?

Completely ignore that i4i might have a case because Microsoft is big and their products are used by a lot of people?

If the judge has come to the current conclusion then I presume he's read the facts of the case. If he hasn't and he's just done it to gain publicity then what is he still doing as a judge?

You're making some mighty big accusations on a case you actually know *no* facts about. That's something us commenters are normally the ones to do; not the paid journalist.

Also: what is with the explanatory paragraph at the end of every article of yours? Do you think we don't know already?

Score: -1

|

As described in the article by the author, the company actually produces product. They therefore do not constitute a Patent Troll.

I agree with most points made by the author, but it seems to me that the author is of the opinion that since Microsoft is so big it should just get its way. (weighing the market-impacting implications of such a ruling) The judge based his decision on the law and not the market. This is as it should be.

MS will either license the technology again as they previously did, or they will work around it. Office will continue to ship and all will be right with the world.

Pat A

Score: -1

|

"They therefore do not constitute a Patent Troll."

The products they make are for the product they are seeking to have pulled form the shelves.

In what bizzarro world does this make sense?

Score: 1

|

The Products that they make were used BY Microsoft prior to Office 2003. How is it exactly that it is patent trolling if you are suing a company for implementing a technology similar to a technology that they were previously licensing from you?

Score: -1

|

With Office 97/2000, i4i worked with Microsoft on the use of XML, primarily for vector markup and presentation information, and then within HTML documents. There were no "The Products that they make" at the time, as far as i4i is concerned.

"How is it exactly that it is patent trolling if you are suing a company for implementing a technology similar to a technology "

Keyword: Similar.

But hey; I don't really know much about this particular patent. If you do, please fill us in. As far as I recall though, similar != infringement. :)

Score: 1

|

Pyrrhic victory?

Score: 0

|

"It's easy for a district court judge to make what seems to be an historic ruling when he knows full well it'll be turned over on appeal."

It shouldn't be "easy". It should come with serious repercussions on the Judge's behalf should the order be one that is not only unreasonable but has zero chance of ever seeing the light of day.

The only consequences of this order are "fame" for the judge in question and *more* money spent on legal appeals.

This isn't justice, this is the perversion of the system for one man's 15 minutes of fame.

Score: 3

|
Below viewing threshold. Show

RE: "... would spend more time weighing the market-impacting implications ... "
This is a court judge we are talking about, not some TV Sensationalist. I am angry at your characterization of the legal system.

Score: -4

|

I'm angry that our legal system can be so easily gamed by patent trolls.

Score: 8

|

talkin bout google? is that the real threat... i think MS knows that :)

Score: 0

|

Microsoft's Ray Ozzie: 'Nobody's going to be 100% open'

The mobile apps ecosystems of the world may converge over time, led by apps being ported over across platforms, according to the Chief Software Architect.

Will Firefox beat IE9 to Direct2D rendering?

Just days after Microsoft executives gave conference attendees a peek at a new rendering technology, a Mozilla contributor revealed he's working on the same thing.

Where there's smoke: Apple warranty stance raises troubling questions

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: Smoking can be dangerous not only for your lungs, it appears, but for your Apple hardware warranty.

The fallacy of Facebook privacy

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: If an insurance company learns something interesting about its client through the Internet, is that snooping?

Microsoft 'worked with Apple' for Silverlight on iPhone, says Goldfarb

By not making such a big deal out of trying to stream video to the iPhone, Microsoft got a big deal out of it, revealed the Silverlight product manager.

Clicker.com cuts through the Web video chaos

In a world where homemade video and Hollywood movies travel the same pipeline, it's good to have a real search engine to cut through the clutter.

A case study in improving software: What Office 2010 can learn from Notion 3

A music composition product gambles with a complete overhaul, in an effort to make headway against two well-known competitors in a tough market.

Kindle 2 update adds battery life, native PDF reader

Amazon has pushed out an update to the Kindle 2 e-reader that lengthens battery life and adds a native PDF viewer.

Safari on iPhone gets competition from a $1 browser app

Apple likes to say it gives iPhone users a full browsing experience, but a new competitor tries to incorporate more desktop browser features.

Action Replay maker sues Microsoft for Xbox 360 'predatory technological barriers'

Third-party video game accessory maker Datel has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft over the Xbox 360's recent Dashboard update.