A judge on Tuesday ordered Microsoft to stop selling Word, one of its premier products, in its current form due to patent infringement.
Judge Leonard Davis of the US 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.
Microsoft did not immediately reply to request for comment but said in a statement that it planned to appeal the verdict.
Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in March 2007 alleging that the software giant 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 qualities being that it is readable by people, not just machines. Unlike HTML, which has predefined tags, XML allows developers and users to define their own tags for data, such as price and product.
In May, a federal jury in Tyler, Texas, ruled that the custom XML tagging features of Word 2003 and Word 2007 infringed on i4i's patent and ordered Microsoft to pay $200m (£120m) in the case.
In Tuesday's ruling, Microsoft was also ordered to pay an additional $40m for willful infringement, as well as $37m in pre-judgement interest. The order requires Microsoft to comply with the injunction within 60 days and forbids Microsoft from testing, demonstrating or marketing Word products containing the contested XML feature.
Talkback
That'll be a turn up for the books. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. Presumably MS had the option to settle this dispute previously and declined to do so.
Muddy waters, all the same.
Still, as with all other software patent disputes, this tends to demonstrate their negative impact on development
"Die" is a bit of an exaggeration — Word will be back on sale before you know it — but it's interesting to see Microsoft on the receiving end of some of its own tactics.
For once, they have my sympathy. Irrespective of whether the XML file format Word uses is open, proprietary or known only to Tibetan monks, it doesn't do anything that XML wasn't designed to do in the first place. The patent concerned covers a use so obvious it's ridiculous. It's rather like someone inventing the Swiss Army Knife, then someone else being able to patent using one to cut bits of wood.
Microsoft has a dilemma: Pay i4i off, and carry on using its own patents in a similar manner, or prove that the patent is invalid — as I believe it is — and risk setting a precedent that may have a negative effect on itself.
of the socalled "software patents".
They are just PATENTLY stupid.
They achieve the opposite of what patents are supposed to do.
This time I am definitly on Micrsofts side and that does not happen very often.
The problem with this shit is that judges are technically inept so are not really the best people to judge this stuff on!
the swiss army knife explanation is brilliant, it is like making a chain saw but then patenting it for use on trees but leaving everything else open for others to us.
the judge needs slapping and i4i need dispanding for trying it on.
The issue here is that intellectual property (IP) is not easy to protect. Many moons ago a Judge in the UK threw a case of 'copyright' out because he could not read with the naked eye(i.e. "see") the code in a chip. Thus if software was burnt in a ROM it was NOT covered by copyright ... This is what started the whole schmozzle about patenting software. In the EU (where I live) one cannot patent software. In the US one can!
I'm not suggesting that IP should not be protected - I have spent many long hours working out how to make a program do what I want - and it involves hard thought. Just because the end results of my efforts can be easily copied does not de-value the skill needed. Just like a painting or music - if the artist wishes to protect the work they should be allowed to. I agree with the concept of Open Source, if someone wishes to provide the IP for free then they should be allowed to. Indeed I have let a few of my 'softwares' go free. However if I'm working for a client they own the IP and I would never dream of releasing code that I do not own. I would not steal a car, money or even a DVD... People should also be allowed to protect hard work if they wish to. How else will the economic system survive unless the mechanism of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" exists.
Mind you I'd love to evolve to "no money", but that won't happen until we have working replicators ... I digress, sorry.
Oh and by the way, I don't side with Micro$oft ... ever... the mad machine that it has become is deserves all it gets. Sending out press releases that state that 'Open Source' TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is greater than the equivalent M$ products ... C'mon!
I hope they do get told to stop selling word!
I hope I'm not infringing any IP with my ideas as stated here!
The issue here is that intellectual property (IP) is not easy to protect. Many moons ago a Judge in the UK threw a case of 'copyright' out because he could not read with the naked eye(i.e. "see") the code in a chip. Thus if software was burnt in a ROM it was NOT covered by copyright ... This is what started the whole schmozzle about patenting software. In the EU (where I live) one cannot patent software. In the US one can!
I'm not suggesting that IP should not be protected - I have spent many long hours working out how to make a program do what I want - and it involves hard thought. Just because the end results of my efforts can be easily copied does not de-value the skill needed. Just like a painting or music - if the artist wishes to protect the work they should be allowed to. I agree with the concept of Open Source, if someone wishes to provide the IP for free then they should be allowed to. Indeed I have let a few of my 'softwares' go free. However if I'm working for a client they own the IP and I would never dream of releasing code that I do not own. I would not steal a car, money or even a DVD... People should also be allowed to protect hard work if they wish to. How else will the economic system survive unless the mechanism of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work" exists.
Mind you I'd love to evolve to "no money", but that won't happen until we have working replicators ... I digress, sorry.
Oh and by the way, I don't side with Micro$oft ... ever... the mad machine that it has become is deserves all it gets. Sending out press releases that state that 'Open Source' TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is greater than the equivalent M$ products ... C'mon!
I hope they do get told to stop selling word!
I hope I'm not infringing any IP with my ideas as stated here!
Software patents wouldn't be so bad if they were almost impossible to obtain. The problem, in the US at least, is that you can apparently patent any trivial or obvious use of software. You can even patent using a tool for something it was actually designed to do — XML was specifically designed to allow custom vocabularies, so the patent in this case seems to have been awarded for just saying "you can use this general tool to do this specific job".
Code you write is subject to copyright, even when not in physical form, and I'm not sure whether the case you're referring to is still valid case law — do you have the case name? Certainly source code is copyright, and no-one can use that without your permission, whether you give it individually or using an open source licence.
As for making money while giving the code away, there's a growing recognition that the value of software doesn't lie in the source code itself, but the knowledge of how it works and how to apply it to a particular task. Having access to a Michelin starred Chef's recipe book isn't much good if you don't have the skill, resources or time to follow the instructions it contains. The same applies to any non-trivial code, and there's the opportunity to make money.
Sorry to break your bubble, but I had the same idea last week. : )
Forgive me for seemingly beeing picky (- but that's what lawyers do!)
An idea that is inside someones head cannot be copyrighted or patented. It has not been 'incarnated'. Once an idea is 'incarnate' then it can be patented or copyrighted. It has to be written down. The case law regarding the ROM's name escapes me but I will try and find it. The actual problem is that I may have a brilliant idea for implementing a truly relational database. If I tell you about it and you then write the code, based on my ideas, unless I have at the very least written the idea down on paper and sent it to myself by registered post - I have no means of proving that you stole my plan for world domination. In music I can write a tune, you can then write a variation of that tune. Law (lots of case law) exists to show that you would need to pay me 'arrangement fees' if the variation is obviously based upon my ideas. There is very little 'new under the sun' in programming. Mr D. Knuth (The Art of Computer Programming) has enshrined most of the fundamentals in his tomes. Should we pay him (or his estate) royalties?
I agree with you about 'giving the code for free' and then obtaining payment for maintenance or training. The mobile telephone market is a prime example whereby I get a brand new iPhone for free, as long as I pay monthly and use my phone... The £450 cost is paid up front by the telco and then they get it back in £25 monthly lumps for the next few years... The telco's seem to think this is a workable business model.
What I'm really saying is what model for IP should we use? Patent and Copyright are a mine field. However, like democracy, is it simply the best out of the awful choices available to us? Should we say, like the comunists - 'All property is theft' or rather 'All intellectual property is theft'?
Is there a better model? Should we still, in this bright new age, be using a system driven by money?????
And if I win the case, after we have paid the lawyers, will there still be enough money to make it worth my while ... Te He!
Moneys the diluting facto as usual :s so maybe the answers a receipt of an agreed percentage between the two party's, so that way if the implementation turns out not to sell so we'll then you still receive something, rather than bankrupting the other party for at least trying to do something good.
Copyrights and patents are rights and not properties.
These rights are privileges given by society and can NOT be called property.
If you lease a car you have the right to use it, but it is not your property.
Privileges and other rights are rights and NOT properties.
It's just like the switch that the financial institutions made a few years back - they started calling insurance policies, investment accounts, mortgages and the like "Products". They are not products. Products can be "scratched and sniffed". These fiscal things are, and will always remain a SERVICE. Us programmers are just as bad - most of what we provide is a service, just like lawyers and accountants we deal with concepts, ideas and things that ARE NOT REAL! That is also why there is a problem with understanding "Intellectual Property". The copyright and patent "services" allow the enforcement of "rights and remidies" in law. Oh yes, and the "Law" is a service, because it deals with abstracts. The only reason a "STOP" sign works is because we agree to obey it. There is nothing physical to stop us. It is only the possibility (not certainty) of a conviction or fine or perhaps our own simple accession to the 'rule of law' that prevents us from just driving through ... And don't get me started on "Data Protection Legislation" ...
But still no-one has come up with a suggestion as to how we could possibly change the system for the better... Oh well, I live in hope.
I read the patent. Not only is the judge in the case an idiot, the patent office examiner is one as well.
The description reads like they are patenting a cross between style sheets, Postscript, Wordstar and practically any XML editor ever programmed. i4i made a "trolling motor". I'm somewhat surprised they didn't go after OpenOffice and Sun Microsystems, I guess Sun didn't have enough cash to interest them.
What's really annoying is that by the patent's design, if you make a program that scans ANY file and records a string of formatting attributes into another file, you've violated the patent. On the surface, its a stupid concept. Not only do you have to keep track of your text file but also the "meta-tag" file. What happens if the metatag file gets damaged? Duh? All your work gets trashed.
I do not like Microsoft, and most of the regulars here know that. I especially hate Office 2007, but I think Microsoft ought to push back hard on this one. Its a really bad patent and it should have been squashed at the initial filing.
i4i cite tons of previous art as a means of excluding those applications from consideration as prior art. What they did though was ignore the use and application of templates in those same applications which practically any word processor will use to set formatting, fonts, font size, physical layout, etcetera. All of that is within the scope of the patent as "meta-tags". Yeah Bubba, we got your meta-tags, your formatting tags, your big and little font tags, what ever you want, we got dibs on it all.
WordPerfect for instance has a $900 package used by lawyers all across the country that is essentially thousands of boilerplate templates for legal documents. It would be incredibly ironic if their initial lawsuit filing was done using one or a few of those templates.
Why did i4i, a Canadian company, have to go all the way to Tyler TX to file suit? Because the i4i attorneys in the Dallas office know the judge in Tyler would rule their way. They shopped around for a compliant judge and then filed in his district court. They can do that since Microsoft gets sold everywhere in the country. Tyler's famous and usual exports are beautiful roses of every description by the millions. Now we can add at least one idiotic IP judgement to the list.
No rosebud Bubba, just thorns.
Lies in having designated specialist district courts/judges to be used for such cases only.
I think what you are talking about is an incineration center.
Design one specifically for software "patents" and have it going day and night as long as there are more such "poison-papers" left.
Judges in a court of law have no chance to make any good ruling for things like this exept they would probably love the chance to rule "Incinerate without delay".
Having specialist courts would make sense but the real issue here is that the patent office, if it was doing its job, would issue patents that really meant something. If it was doing its job, there wouldn't need to be as many patent battles as there seem to be. The patents would be understandable and NOT vague to the point of insensibility.
I think that as a matter of battling the patent mess, they ought to force the company to explain exactly what is being patented in plain english (or whatever language the patent application is being filed in) to a jury of ordinary citizens. If they can't decide unanimously what is being patented, the patent application fails.
Allow software to be copyrighted only if its been commented and documented within the source code but never patented.
Yup Xwindowsjunkie that would help immensely no doubt, its funny you would naturally assume thats the way they would deal with things like this. :/
I wouldn't ass-u-me that that's the way they'd do it. Fighting the patent makes money for the legal profession. It requires 'civil servants' to process the application, civil servants who have specialist knowledge ... this means the civil service can justify specialists.
In the documentation when one applies for a patent it states in clear and simple language that the patent description must be easily understood by anyone 'competent in the art'. The suggestion that a patent is complex or hard to understand is officially frwoned upon. Which is what puzzled the socks off of me when I was involved with a highly paid patent attorney who helped me generate the patent documentation for the patent that has my name on it - along with my friend and the name of the company that provided the £25K it cost to do it all. He stated that it should be 'easily understandable' but we spent most of the time in obfuscation and generalisation so that another patent of a similar 'device' would not be allowed without (costly) investigation...
It's still all down to 'money'!
Green poison infestation again eh.